Recent Decline in Public Transportation Ridership: Analysis, Causes, and Responses (2022)

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.

100 11.1 Findings from the Research Taken as a whole, the research presented in this report shows that a mix of factors are contrib- uting to recent transit ridership trends, pushing transit ridership in competing directions. This chapter gives strategies for transit agencies to increase ridership and mitigate or stem declines in ridership based on the key findings from this research. Additionally, this chapter includes useful sources relevant to the various recommended strategies. First, in the system-level, multicity analysis, the research team found net transit ridership declines between 2012 and 2018. Two major sets of factors were pushing to increase transit ridership, including more service and increases in population and employment. However, other major factors more than offset those for overall declines in ridership; these include factors around the expense of taking transit, such as increasing fares, but also factors that make transit less competi- tive with automobiles, such as declining gas prices and increasing incomes. Finally, transit must now compete against other, new modes, such as ride-hailing, and factors such as the increased prevalence of telecommuting, thus negating the need for a trip. Initial case studies at the stop level focused first on understanding how transit ridership has changed by time of day and day of the week as well as the sensitivity of ridership to changes in service frequency. Researchers used detailed bus APC data for four agencies: TriMet (Portland), Miami-Dade Transit (Miami), Metro Transit (Minneapolis-St. Paul), and MARTA (Atlanta). They found that while ridership is declining across all time periods, night and weekend ridership has declined the most. Simultaneously, service frequencies have increased more during nights and weekends than during weekday periods in all cities except for Miami, thus indicating that some external factor is impacting night and weekend ridership. An additional case study for BART showed that this peaking of ridership is also occurring on heavy rail transit. Furthermore, capacity constraints imposed on heavy rail systems built in the early 1970s mean that maintenance often requires service cuts and single-tracking on nights and weekends, thus exacerbating the problem of ridership “peaking.” At both the stop level and route level, the research team also assessed the impact of giving transit priority in the form of light rail and BRT. Ridership on the new light rail line in Minneapolis- St. Paul almost doubled despite a reduction in overall service frequency. Ridership also increased by 34% following the opening of an arterial BRT line in Minneapolis-St. Paul, which increased the overall frequency by 36%. Whether the higher ridership on light rail is due to improved service characteristics or to a “rail factor”—a preference of passengers toward rail—could not be shown. However, further evidence of the impact of BRT on transit ridership came from the route- level analysis in Cleveland. The results suggest that converting bus routes to full BRT or adding C H A P T E R 1 1 Strategies, Implementation Resources, and Key Lessons Learned

Strategies, Implementation Resources, and Key Lessons Learned 101   substantial BRT features increased ridership significantly (potentially between 22% to 46%) per year. However, merely branding routes with no improvement in the level of service did not result in significant changes in ridership. At the route level, additional case studies assessed the impact of e-scooters and fare dis- counts on transit ridership. Using Louisville as a case study, the researchers found that shared e-scooters do not have a significant impact on local bus ridership, either as a competitor or as a first-mile/last-mile complement. Using Topeka as a case study, they found that fare-free promotions for students, kids, veterans, and seniors have resulted in significant increases in bus ridership. Finally, the research team assessed three simulated scenarios for Atlanta and Oshkosh using CityCast to provide a broad idea of the types of strategies that might be effective at increasing transit ridership. It was found that there is potential to increase transit ridership without major budget increases by reallocating existing service to serve both high-ridership corridors and low- income travelers. This was reinforced in the system-level analysis, in which bus network rede- signs also increased bus ridership. These results have pointed to many things that transit agencies can do to improve ridership, but many of these strategies are nuanced or require agencies to work with or through local, regional, state, or even national partners to ensure that transit remains competitive. These strate- gies have been organized into five broad categories: • Rethink Mission, Service Standards, Metrics, and Service Delivery • Redesign Fare Policy • Give Transit Priority • Consider Partnerships with Shared-Use Mobility Providers Carefully • Encourage Transit-Oriented Density Each of these categories will be explained as follows in the context of the research findings. Then, in the following sections, implementation resources and lessons learned are presented to aid agencies and their partners in pushing these strategies forward. 11.1.1 Rethink Mission, Service Standards, Metrics, and Service Delivery Results in the system-level analysis show that service additions resulted in net bus ridership increases from 3% to 5% and net rail ridership increases from 10% to 18%. Service increases from 2012 to 2018 have negated what could have been even greater losses in transit ridership. At the same time, ridership was demonstrated to be peaking, with a.m. and p.m. peak ridership declining the least and nighttime ridership declining the most. The most productive service (ridership per vehicle hour) occurred on weekdays. Meanwhile, the research team found that nighttime ridership was the most sensitive to changes in frequency. Finally, simulations in Oshkosh and Atlanta showed that there is potential to increase transit ridership without major budget increases by reallocating existing service. It is critical that agencies undertake careful analysis of when service is needed the most to improve productivity on routes. At the same time, it is time for the public transportation industry as a whole to rethink its service standards, service delivery, and performance metrics to ensure that they are reflective of the twin missions of good public transit—both to serve respectfully those who rely on transit on a day-to-day basis through more emphasis on equity of accessibility and service, and to provide mobility efficiently in urban areas. New performance metrics are needed to project transit’s role in thoughtfully serving critical worker populations.

102 Recent Decline in Public Transportation Ridership: Analysis, Causes, and Responses 11.1.2 Redesign Fare Policy The system-level analysis shows that fare increases resulted in 0% to 4% lower bus ridership and 2% to 5% lower rail ridership from 2012 to 2018. As fares increase, transit becomes less com- petitive with other modes, resulting in lower ridership. However, there are strategies that transit agencies can pursue beyond simply keeping fares low. The case study in Topeka showed that stra- tegic fare discounts can substantially increase transit ridership. Fare-free promotions for students, kids in summer, seniors, and veterans showed significant positive impacts on bus ridership. Other findings in the report point more broadly to the necessity for more innovation in fare policies as well. The system-level analysis shows that more people working at home resulted in lower bus and rail ridership. The longer-term impacts of teleworking during COVID-19 could be significant for regular transit ridership, pointing toward the necessity of moving away from monthly passes and toward fare payment systems that allow discounts for frequent but irregular transit use over less-fixed time spans. Transit agencies must begin to be more creative about fare media and pricing policies to ensure that commuters who have many options and make fewer trips are choosing transit as often as possible, even if it is not for every trip. More flexible fare policies, such as fare capping, compared to traditional monthly passes may be needed to entice commuters back to transit. 11.1.3 Give Transit Priority Giving transit exclusive right-of-way, to prioritize transit modes above lower-capacity modes, makes transit run faster and more reliably, thereby encouraging transit ridership. Case studies in Minneapolis-St. Paul and Cleveland show that high-quality light rail and BRT can increase ridership substantially, even with limited service increases. The simulation in Atlanta also shows that bus-only lanes could substantially increase ridership. Furthermore, research on the system level also shows that declining gas prices resulted in 4% lower bus and rail ridership from 2012–2018, and increases in car ownership resulted in lower bus and rail ridership as well. The best way to minimize this competition with the automobile will continue to be giving modes that carry more people priority over those that take up more space. 11.1.4 Consider Partnerships with Shared-Use Mobility Providers Carefully Integration with shared-use mobility and micromobility providers can help address some first- mile/last-mile issues via e-scooters and bicycles, but such partnerships should be approached carefully so that modes such as ride-hailing do not compete directly with transit in the most productive corridors, further reducing transit ridership. The case study in Louisville showed that e-scooters had limited, if any, impact on local bus ridership and may have even slightly increased express bus ridership. Transit agencies can consider micromobility partnerships to address first-mile/last-mile connectivity issues. At the same time, new competing modes resulted in 10% to 12% lower bus ridership from 2012–2018 in the system-level analysis. The effect of ride-hailing on rail ridership in larger metro areas (with high operating expenses) was much smaller, but the effect on rail ridership in the mid operating expenses group was similar to bus. These partnerships must be struck strategically to ensure that they are working in the best interest of transit agencies and riders. 11.1.5 Encourage Transit-Oriented Density Finally, regional agencies and municipalities should pursue development and densities that are supportive of transit to ensure that transit can stay competitive in the urban form. In the

Strategies, Implementation Resources, and Key Lessons Learned 103   system-level analysis, the research team found that metro areas have become slightly less centralized in the past decade, partially offsetting gains in ridership due to population and employment, so that the combined effect of land use changes is a less than 2% increase in ridership. Transit agencies can do their part to improve densities near transit stations through transit-oriented development, but regional partnerships are critically important to ensure that transit-oriented density is occurring with regional growth in areas that are already sup- ported by transit or could easily be supported by transit as growth occurs. 11.2 Implementation Considerations and Resources The previous section describes possible strategies that emerge from this research that could be pursued in an effort to increase transit ridership. However, the research also had as an objec- tive to circle back and consider existing experiences in order to identify key implementation considerations and valuable resources that would aid in the pursuit of these strategies. This involved interviews with experts with experiences related to these strategies in order to solicit candid insights on implementation challenges, hindsight about lessons learned, and useful resources. This was supplemented by an in-depth survey and identification of key internet resources and pertinent literature that provides specific guidance to implement the strategies. In the following sections, the identified implementation considerations and useful resources for each strategy are summarized. 11.3 Rethink Mission, Service Standards, Metrics, and Service Delivery The research in this report has shown that prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, transit rider- ship was peaking, with a.m. and p.m. peak ridership declining the least while weekday night and weekend night ridership declined the most. This was likely caused in part by the competition offered by TNC services. These trends suggested the need to rethink transit agency strategy. However, the COVID-19 pandemic has created newer trends, such as a huge increase in working from home that has dramatically reduced transit service in general and peak commuting rider- ship in particular. Expert opinion suggests that telecommuting will continue to play a role even in a post-pandemic period, though opinions diverge considerably on how important that role will be, how long it will take for recovery, and what the “new normal” will look like. How the new trends will interact with previous trends is confusing and represents a major challenge for transit agencies as they try to plan for the future and reposition their mission and services. In light of this, transit agencies will need to rethink their mission, their service standards, the metrics they use to measure success, and service delivery options. 11.3.1 Key Implementation Considerations for Mission, Service Standards, and Metrics 11.3.1.1 Consider a Mobility Management Mission for the Organization The research suggested the need to review the transit agency’s mission even before the pan- demic, but this need has become all the more acute given the uncertainty surrounding the shape of the new normal for transit in the future. Even prior to the pandemic, the availability of new modes and of new concepts such as Mobility on Demand (MOD) and Mobility as a Service has led many experts to view urban mobility as requiring an integrated mobility systems approach, where the transit agency might broaden its mission from one of operations delivery to one of mobility management. Several transit agencies have started embarking on this path through their long-range planning and the implementation of innovative partnerships and services. This

104 Recent Decline in Public Transportation Ridership: Analysis, Causes, and Responses suggests that agencies should at the very least conduct an internal reflection on pursuing a mobility management mission and assess its benefits, costs, and impacts. Although beyond the scope of this research, experiences during the pandemic have highlighted the importance of equity as a major concern in how transit service is designed and delivered. This was brought to intense light by comparing the experiences of office workers who could use tech- nology to work from home versus essential workers and low-income employees who needed to continue to use transit service even during severe lockdowns. As transit agencies reflect on their mission, it will be critical for them to explicitly take equity into consideration, which may require the development of new goals and metrics as well as impact the design of services and their delivery. 11.3.1.2 Adopt a More Holistic Perspective on Performance Measurement That Is Human-Centric MOD projects have highlighted the limitations of current performance metrics and have led to a rethinking of how performance might be approached in new ways. New performance metrics are needed that are more holistic in nature and more human-centric, focusing on rider experience. One such reflection emerges from a 2020 report titled Mobility Performance Metrics (MPM) for Integrated Mobility and Beyond, prepared by TransitCenter and others for FTA, that suggests a core and three tiers of potential metrics, as follows: • Core—metrics measuring how well the integrated mobility system meets the needs of indi- vidual travelers. Specifically, how individual travelers view their trip experience is measured through five factors that affect transportation efficiency, effectiveness, and experience: time, budget, reliability, safety, and availability. • Tier 1—metrics measuring how effectively and efficiently the integrated mobility system performs while meeting the needs of individual travelers. • Tier 2—metrics measuring how the integrated mobility system impacts the region in terms of sustainability, accessibility, environment, workforce, etc. • Tier 3—metrics measuring how the integrated mobility system impacts national goals for societal benefits, economic benefits, return on infrastructure investment, etc. 11.3.2 Key Implementation Resources and References for Mission, Service Standards, and Metrics • TransitCenter et al., 2020, Mobility Performance Metrics (MPM) for Integrated Mobility and Beyond, FTA, https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/research-innovation/ 147791/mobility-performance-metrics-integrated-mobility-and-beyond-fta-report-no- 0152.pdf This report presents traveler-centric mobility performance strategies and metrics, and the approach for the development of those metrics for use as supplemental measures, to assess how well an integrated public/ private mobility system meets the needs of individual travelers, how well the system performs while meeting overall travel demand, and what the system’s impact is locally and nationally. By measuring transportation performance from the traveler’s perspective, agencies and operators can be incentivized to improve service based on what matters most to travelers. The report identifies a large set of potential measures that align with FTA goals as well as goals of the MOD Sandbox projects. It then presents a comprehensive evaluation process with applicability and feasibility criteria that were used to cull the potential performance measures to a smaller, more appropriate set of performance measures. The report discusses possible data sources and data integration strategies for the application of the new mobility performance measures. • McCoy et al., 2018, Integrating Shared Mobility into Multimodal Transportation Planning: Improving Regional Performance to Meet Public Goals, FHWA, https://www.planning.dot. gov/documents/SharedMobility_Whitepaper_02-2018.pdf New shared-mobility services have become increasingly common and important modes of travel in U.S. cities, but transportation planning practices are only beginning to adapt in response. This white paper provides a framework and examples to assist transportation agencies—metropolitan planning organizations

Strategies, Implementation Resources, and Key Lessons Learned 105   (MPOs), local governments, transit agencies, and states—in anticipating and planning for shared mobility as part of a higher-performing regional multimodal transportation system. It synthesizes noteworthy prac- tices in 13 metropolitan areas collected from online research and conversations with planning practitio- ners; identifies challenges and opportunities; and provides recommendations for future research needed to improve planning practices related to shared mobility. • McCoy, et al., 2019, Integrating Shared Mobility into Multimodal Transportation Planning: Metropolitan Area Case Studies, FHWA, https://www.planning.dot.gov/documents/regional_ shared_mobility_planning_caseStudies.pdf New shared-mobility services have become increasingly common, and transportation agencies are begin- ning to integrate them into regional planning processes. This report provides three case studies of how MPOs and their regional partners are integrating shared mobility into regional multimodal transportation planning. • Kittelson & Associates, Inc., et al., 2003, TCRP Report 88: A Guidebook for Developing a Transit Performance-Measurement System, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_report_88/Guidebook.pdf This report provides a practical, user-friendly guidebook to assist transit system managers in develop- ing a performance-measurement system that uses traditional and non-traditional performance indicators and measures to address customer-oriented and community issues. The guidebook provides a menu of performance indicators and measures, describes how to select and implement the most appropriate performance indicators and measures, and explains how to incorporate the indicators and measures in the decision-making process to monitor and improve service. • Kittelson and Associates, Inc., et al., 2013, TCRP Report 165: Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, Third Edition, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, https://doi.org/10.17226/24766 This report provides guidance on transit capacity and quality-of-service issues and the factors influencing both. The manual contains background information, statistics, and graphics on the various types of public transportation, and it provides a framework for measuring transit availability, comfort, and convenience from the passenger and transit provider points of view. In addition, the manual includes quantitative techniques for calculating the capacity and other operational characteristics of bus, rail, demand-responsive, and ferry transit services, as well as transit stops, stations, and terminals. • Boyle, D., 2019, TCRP Synthesis 139: Transit Service Evaluation Standards, Transportation Research Board, https://doi.org/10.17226/25446 This report addresses the service evaluation process, from the selection of appropriate metrics through development of service evaluation standards and data collection and analysis to the identification of actions to improve service and implementation. The report also documents effective practices in the development and use of service evaluation standards. The report includes an analysis of the state of the practice of the service evaluation process in agencies of different sizes, geographic locations, and modes. 11.4 Redesign Fare Policy Fare policy is within the control of the transit agency. The research in this report on pre- COVID trends confirms the positive impact on ridership that can be obtained from the imple- mentation of fare discounts. At the same time, recent developments during the pandemic suggest that patterns may be significantly altered in the future, with more working from home and less regular commuting to downtown cores, which suggests that a review of fare policy may be required. The following are some key implementation lessons to consider. 11.4.1 Key Implementation Considerations for Fare Discounts and Policies 11.4.1.1 Strategy for Fare Discounts Each transit agency should develop a clear strategy related to fare discounts. For example, is the goal of implementing fare discounts to gain ridership at a reasonable cost to the transit

106 Recent Decline in Public Transportation Ridership: Analysis, Causes, and Responses agency, or is the goal to build up the image of the transit agency within the community and high- light its community brand? The choice of strategy could lead to potentially different types and numbers of fare discounts. Having a clear strategy on fare discounts also enables a more rational response to the many and diverse interest groups that might seek fare discounts. Additionally, fare-free promotions, similar to the Topeka Metro case study, could be a strategy to gradually move toward offering free fares to all riders, an innovative approach to fare policy currently under consideration by some American transit agencies. 11.4.1.2 Model Business Impacts of Fare Discounts Having a clear strategy provides a basic framework for assessing potential fare discounts, but it is also important to conduct a detailed assessment of any potential fare discount and model the related business impacts. This evaluation should include modeling ridership impacts, revenue losses, potential partnerships to cover revenue losses, enforcement costs, and spillover impacts. Additionally, fare-free promotions could potentially reduce the over- all cost of fare collection (both capital and operating), which should also be evaluated as a potential benefit. 11.4.1.3 Ensure Flexibility and Periodic Reevaluation Strategies change over time, as do financial situations. Fare discounts provided today may not be affordable in the future. Therefore, it is important to ensure flexibility and build in a process for periodic reevaluation over time. For example, the pricing of UPass discounts are negotiated based on the best estimate of capacity and usage beforehand but should be reevaluated based on the actual experience over time. In the absence of a clear time-horizon and reevalua- tion process, beneficiaries of fare discounts will assume that the discounts are a right and will be frozen in perpetuity, when neither is the case. 11.4.1.4 Pay Attention to Practical Set-Up and Monitor Usage In order to enable periodic reevaluation, there must be good data on usage and on related revenues and costs. This requires careful attention to the practical details of how the fare dis- count is to be applied, monitored, and enforced so as to collect accurate data while minimizing the potential for fare evasion. Does the fare collection system enable this? If not, is the system structured to make it simple for operators to perform their functions? 11.4.1.5 Assess Impact of Fare Discounts on ADA Paratransit Service Any permanent changes to fare policy—such as fare discounts—must be applied to ADA paratransit service as well as to regular route service, a fact that is sometimes forgotten. In many cases, given the nature of ADA paratransit service and the special needs of its clients, imple- menting and monitoring fare discounts may be more complex. It should be noted that it is possible to test a fare discount for a limited time period only on fixed-route services. 11.4.1.6 Redesign Fare Policy for a Post-COVID New Normal There is reason to believe that post-pandemic mobility patterns may be significantly altered in the future, with more work from home and less regular commuting to downtown cores. Transit agen- cies should therefore reassess fare policies to explore how they might be structured to increase ridership in light of new normal mobility patterns; examples might include fare capping or the implementation of two- or three-day passes to replace weekly or monthly passes, given the likely increase of people working at least part of the week from home.

Strategies, Implementation Resources, and Key Lessons Learned 107   11.4.2 Key Implementation Resources and References for Fare Discounts and Policies • Volinski, 2012, TCRP Synthesis 101: Implementation and Outcomes of Fare-Free Transit Systems, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, https://doi.org/10.17226/22753 This report highlights the experiences of public transit agencies that have planned, implemented, and operated fare-free transit systems. The report focuses on public transit agencies that are either direct recipients or subrecipients of federal transit grants and that furnish fare-free services to everyone in a service area on every mode provided. • TCRP J-11/Task 39: Evaluation Framework for Fare-Free Public Transportation, https:// apps.trb.org/cmsfeed/TRBNetProjectDisplay.asp?ProjectID=4888 The objective of this ongoing research is to develop a framework to evaluate fare-free public transpor- tation. The framework should address the benefits, costs, and trade-offs that must be considered by public transportation providers, policy makers, and other stakeholders as they consider eliminating fares, in whole or in part, for public transportation. • Brakewood, 2020, TCRP Synthesis 148: Business Models for Mobile Fare Apps, Transportation Research Board, https://doi.org/10.17226/25798 This synthesis documents current practices and experiences of transit agencies that offer mobile fare payment applications to transit riders and the different approaches to business models that they have implemented. • Kok and Lipták, 2020, TCRP Synthesis 144: Multimodal Fare Payment Integration, Transpor- tation Research Board, https://doi.org/10.17226/25734 Multimodal payment convergence is the ability to use the same payment medium or technology to pay for services on multiple modes of transportation—which provides a more seamless and conve- nient experience for users. This synthesis explains what payment convergence is, what can be achieved through payment convergence, and the pathways to implementation. • TCRP Synthesis J-07/SH-21: Transit Fare Capping: Balancing Revenue and Equity Impacts, https://apps.trb.org/cmsfeed/TRBNetProjectDisplay.asp?ProjectID=5013 The objective of this research is to document the implementation, planning, and assessment of fare capping in North American transit agencies. A fare cap is a practice in which users are charged according to rides taken over a period of time; a user’s combined fares over multiple rides cannot exceed the amount a rider would have paid if they had purchased the optimal period pass based on their usage. Fare capping offers many advantages: greater convenience, transit fairness, and most of all more equitable access to the discounts afforded by those who purchase transit passes. The trade-offs include reduction in revenue, uncertain ridership impacts, and required investments in new technology. 11.5 Give Transit Priority The research in this report has shown that giving transit priority can significantly increase transit ridership. Transit priority helps to increase average speeds, reduce travel times, and increase service reliability, which all contribute to making transit more attractive to poten- tial riders. There is an array of increasingly complex methods and means to improve transit priority, including: • Physical priority • TSP • BRT • LRT

108 Recent Decline in Public Transportation Ridership: Analysis, Causes, and Responses Transit agencies can only implement physical priority measures and TSP in cooperation with the traffic engineers who manage traffic signals and the design and operation of streets; and the design and implementation of BRT and LRT systems are by their nature major, complex, multiyear undertakings. The following are some key implementation lessons to consider, focusing more on shorter-term strategies. 11.5.1 Key Implementation Considerations for Transit Priority 11.5.1.1 Build Partnership with Traffic Engineering Counterparts Municipal or state traffic engineers design, manage, and operate streets and highways as well as the traffic control systems that regulate their operation. There are various physical transit priority measures that might be considered, including queue jumps, bus lanes (permanent, peak-period only, or temporary, such as in recent examples of pop-up lanes), restricted turns for general traffic, transit-only turn exemptions, bump-out curbs, parking restrictions, and restrictions on through traffic. TSP may include such measures as actuated transit-only signals, green phase extension, red phase truncation, and phase rotation. Both physical priority mea- sures and TSP require a partnership with traffic engineering counterparts. Unfortunately, transit agency staff members often only have limited interactions with their traffic counterparts, making it challenging to engage in the required negotiations and compromises that transit measures and TSP require. It is essential to build a strong partnership in advance to systematically pursue these priority measures. 11.5.1.2 Pay Considerable Attention to Parking Strategy Removal of parking is one of the most contentious issues when implementing transit priority measures, and it is often the source of significant opposition from local merchants. Any effort to implement transit priority will need to pay considerable attention to the related parking strategy—with efforts to monitor parking capacity and usage—and develop a careful strategy that minimizes removal of parking spaces, finds alternative locations, or does both. 11.5.1.3 Explicitly Consider Enforcement Lack of enforcement can often be a potentially big weakness in all transit priority initiatives. Careful and explicit consideration should assess how potential violations might occur and how the transit priority measures can be enforced. This should encourage the use of technology, such as cameras at intersections or onboard cameras on buses, to design out the need for enforce- ment. When enforcement is used, it should be applied equitably to ensure violations are taken seriously in order to improve transportation. 11.5.1.4 Take Advantage of All Road or Utility Work to Insert Priority Treatments Roads and utilities located underneath the road pavement require maintenance or modi- fication on a periodic basis; maintenance may be planned in advance, needed as a result of development of adjacent buildings, or conducted on an emergency basis. Road work and utility relocation cause disruption of existing road geometrics and operation, thereby creating an opportunity for change. Experts agree that transit agencies should have ready-made plans for implementation of priority measures so that they can take advantage of these opportunities. However, this requires a close working relationship with municipal staff responsible for traffic operations and utility relocation so that transit agencies are informed of these developments and can quickly implement desired priority measures. Pop-up lanes are often referred to as “tactical transit” or “pilots” and have become increasingly implemented.

Strategies, Implementation Resources, and Key Lessons Learned 109   11.5.1.5 Develop Multitiered Communications Strategy to Engage Riders and Address Concerns of Local Merchants Implementation of priority measures may be resisted by local affected merchants and auto users, and municipal traffic staff and politicians are very sensitive to the complaints this may generate. Therefore, it is critical to have a multitiered communications strategy that serves three different objectives: • Engage the active support of the transit users who will benefit from the measures. • Communicate to the general public (and local politicians) the benefits to transit riders and society from the measures. • Listen one-on-one to local merchants and their concerns, and address their concerns to the extent possible. Recent transit priority implementations have involved extensive data gathering on benefits and usage, and practitioners have used this data to support extensive communications in order to serve these three objectives. With respect to the third objective, efforts can also be made to monitor the access mode of shoppers, which can be used to show merchants that transit users and pedestrians may be more important to their sales than car users. 11.5.1.6 Use of a Pilot Project for Rapid Testing of a Concept Several recent significant transit priority implementations have started out as pilots. This can be useful in two ways. First, a “pilot” requires and justifies an important data gathering effort (both technical information as well as market research and opinion surveys), which in turn supports the communications strategy. Second, it creates an opportunity to improve the project based on the feedback from local politicians and the general public; the pilot will be made per- manent if the resulting data prove the value of the initiative. There can be more acceptance and buy-in if the initiative has some room for customization and proves its worth as a pilot. 11.5.1.7 Importance of the Concept of Operations for Implementing TSP As mentioned previously, all transit priority projects involve a close partnership between transit agency staff and traffic engineers—but this is especially true for the implementation of TSP, which involves complex technological choices. It is critical to clearly articulate the expectations and requirements of the TSP system among the concerned stakeholders, and this can be achieved through the concept of operations (often referred to as the ConOps). The concept of operations, which emerged from the field of systems engineering, defines what the stakeholders want the system to be able to do from the users’ point of view and how the system should function. A TSP ConOps defines the operations of the TSP system, the conditions for requesting and granting signal priority, and the traffic control strategies that the TSP system should be able to perform, as well as clarifies how it will be operated and maintained. The ConOps provides the basis for defining the functional requirements for the system, which will in turn be used to select the most effective technological solution for the defined requirements. A clear articulation of the ConOps is critical to ensure that there is agreement and no misunderstanding among the stakeholders. 11.5.1.8 Coalition-Building and Maintenance for the Long Haul Is Key to Success and Critical in Early Stages of Project Management Physical transit priority measures and TSP require partnerships among transit and traffic engineering staff. However, the design and building of BRT or LRT systems is far more complex, more expensive, and long-term in nature. Such projects will require complex technical planning as well as management of the institutional process. Successful projects will require sophisticated coalition-building among many stakeholders around a common vision and its maintenance

110 Recent Decline in Public Transportation Ridership: Analysis, Causes, and Responses over time in order to obtain and maintain the necessary public and political support as well as funding from many sources. Experts have suggested that coalition-building skills may be more important at the outset of a project, while technical expertise may become more important later on during the project, once it has been approved and moves into the technical design phases. 11.5.2 Key Implementation Resources and References for Transit Priority 11.5.2.1 Transit Priority Physical Measures • Garcia and Wall, 2019, TCRP Research Report 207: Fast-Tracked: A Tactical Transit Study, Transportation Research Board, https://doi.org/10.17226/25571 This report documents the current state of the practice with regard to what are called Tactical Transit projects, specifically for surface transit (bus and streetcar). The report highlights how transit agencies and other entities are using innovative methods to improve transit speed, access, and ridership at a fraction of both the cost and time of conventional projects. • Danaher et al., 2020, TCRP Research Report 215: Minutes Matter: A Bus Transit Service Reliability Guidebook, Transportation Research Board, https://doi.org/10.17226/25727 This report details eight steps that a transit agency can undertake to develop and maintain a reliability improvement program. • Boyle, 2013, TCRP Synthesis 110: Commonsense Approaches for Improving Transit Bus Speeds, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, https://doi.org/10.17226/22421 This report documents approaches transit agencies have taken to realize gains in average bus speeds. The report outlines actions that transit agencies can take to improve service speeds, reliability, and attractiveness. • Green, 2020, On-Road Public Transport Priority Tool, Austroads, https://austroads.com.au/ publications/traffic-management/ap-r645-20 This report presents a practical process (referred to as a “tool”) to guide practitioners through the selection of the appropriate on-road public transport priority treatments for any road scenario. This step-by-step process can be used for applications relating to existing roads or a new/greenfield road development. It considers all forms of priority, ranging from road space to stop design and location to TSP and traffic signal gating. Using this guidance, practitioners will ensure consistency, traceability, and robustness of their decision-making process. 11.5.2.2 Transit Signal Priority • Smith et al., 2005, Transit Signal Priority (TSP): A Planning and Implementation Handbook, https://nacto.org/docs/usdg/transit_signal_priority_handbook_smith.pdf This handbook outlines a comprehensive process for planning and implementing TSP, based on a systems engineering approach, that identifies many of the issues that may need to be addressed in a TSP project. It also provides a number of resources to those interested in TSP—including primers on traffic control equipment and systems, on key concepts (e.g., simulation and optimization), as well as on traffic engineering and transit terminology—to assist transit planners and traffic engineers in understanding one another. • Anderson et al., 2020, TCRP Synthesis 149: Transit Signal Priority: Current State of the Practice, Transportation Research Board, https://doi.org/10.17226/25816 This report documents the current practice of TSP, an important tool that increases bus speeds and reliability, thereby improving transit system efficiency and effectiveness. 11.5.2.3 Bus Rapid Transit BRT has become increasingly popular as a transit product in the last 20 years, taking on a variety of formats—from BRT-light on shared streets with some operational improvements and

Strategies, Implementation Resources, and Key Lessons Learned 111   different branding to complete and sophisticated full BRT systems operating on their own right- of-way and using an array of technological enhancements, becoming similar to LRT in many respects. Several resources and reports provide practical guidance on the design and implementa- tion of BRT systems, including the following: • National BRT Institute, https://nbrti.org/ According to the National BRT Institute, “The mission of the National BRT Institute is to facilitate the sharing of knowledge and innovation for increasing speed, efficiency, and reliability of high-capacity bus service through the implementation of BRT systems in the United States.” • Levinson et al., 2003, TCRP Report 90: Bus Rapid Transit Volume 2: Implementation Guidelines, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, https://doi.org/10.17226/21947 This report discusses the main components of BRT and describes BRT concepts, planning considerations, and key issues as well as the system development process, desirable conditions for BRT, and general plan- ning principles. The report also provides an overview of system types. • Kittelson & Associates et al., 2007, TCRP Report 118: Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, https://doi.org/10.17226/23172 This report explores the costs, impacts, and effectiveness of implementing selected BRT components. The report examines planning and decision-making related to implementing different components of BRT systems, updates some of the information presented in TCRP Report 90: Bus Rapid Transit, Volume 2: Implementation Guidelines, and highlights the costs and impacts of implementing various BRT compo- nents and the effectiveness of those components. • Institute for Transportation & Development Policy, 2017, Bus Rapid Transit Planning Guide, https://www.itdp.org/2017/11/16/the-brt-planning-guide/ Bus Rapid Transit Planning Guide gives a step-by-step description of the BRT planning process, including operational design, financial modeling, physical design, multi-modal and land use integration, business plan development, communications and marketing, contracting, vehicle and fare collection technology, evaluation, and implementation. 11.5.2.4 Light Rail Transit LRT systems are very complex endeavors to plan, design, and operate, and they require complex and sophisticated project management involving full teams of planners, consultants, engineers, and so on. There are actually few North American resources on LRT design and operation, but the following list identifies a few practical resources from Germany and the Netherlands, plus conference presentations by year for the TRB Light Rail Transit Committee: • Standing Committee on Light Rail Transit, https://www.trblightrail.org/Meetings The Standing Committee on Light Rail Transit is a TRB forum that solicits research on LRT development, experience, and lessons learned. • VDV-Industry Forum, 2014, Stadtbahnsysteme [Light Rail Systems], 992 pages, https://www. vdv.de/blaue-buecher.aspx This book deals with the basics, technology, operation, and financing of important aspects of the “Stadtbahn” transport system. It explains how the requirements for a reliable energy supply can be met and how stops and routes can be designed with regard to passenger comfort, environmental protection, and urban plan- ning. Current developments in customer-related telematics, depots and workshops, and personnel and incident management are shown. • VDV-Industry Forum, 2016, Gestaltung von urbaner Straßenbahninfrastruktur [Design of Urban Tram Infrastructure], 168 pages, https://www.vdv.de/blaue-buecher.aspx This book covers the different phases of the LRT planning process, including the principles of successful design of the rail track, platforms, stops, electric supply, and vehicle exterior design.

112 Recent Decline in Public Transportation Ridership: Analysis, Causes, and Responses • Van Der Bijl, R., and Van Oort, N., 2018, Light Rail Transit Systems: 61 Lessons in Sustainable Urban Development, Elsevier This book shows how to design and operate light rail to maximize its social benefits and how to under- stand the value of light rail and tactics on its effective integration into communities. Readers will learn how to develop important relationships with local decision makers and communities. – Presents applied research by experienced practitioners and academic researchers – Draws on more than 50 cases from Europe, the Middle East, United Kingdom, and United States – Incorporates five themes on why it’s important to invest in light rail, including for effective mobility and for an efficient city, economy, environment, and equity – Includes a checklist for planning public transport projects 11.6 Consider Partnerships with Shared-Use Mobility Providers Carefully Many experts have suggested that transit agencies should develop partnerships with new shared-use mobility providers—such as TNCs, microtransit, car-sharing, and micromobility (e.g., bike-sharing, e-scooters)—in an effort to offer a broader array of services that might encourage people to not use their personal automobiles. However, the research shows that transit agencies need to consider such partnerships with care since these new services can some- times be competitors to transit, while others may serve a complementary role. For example, the research in this report shows that the introduction of TNC services clearly contributed to a loss in transit ridership, but it also shows that e-scooters may be complementary to express buses. The following are some key implementation lessons to consider. 11.6.1 Key Implementation Considerations for Mobility Partnerships 11.6.1.1 Define the Problem or Service Gap of Concern and the Related Goal of the Partnership Any partnership must be based on a clear articulation of the problem or opportunity being addressed and the goal being pursued through the partnership. This is all the more important since private and public organizations have very different corporate objectives and will see the problem or opportunity through very different lenses. Clearly defining the basis of the partnership will help to avoid misunderstandings and make negotiations more effective. 11.6.1.2 Assess the Desirable and Feasible Level of Cooperation, Coordination, or Integration with Microtransit, Micromobility, or TNC Providers There is a wide range of potential shared-use partners and types of partnerships that might be considered. In this respect, one might define three levels of partnership: • Cooperation, such as mutual promotion or joint marketing with shared-use services that the transit agency feels is complementary • Coordination, such as providing space for bike-sharing docks or car-sharing parking spots at transit stations, or the use of a transit smart card to provide access to car-sharing vehicles • Integration, which involves a specific effort to integrate mutual services and can take various forms, including integrated trip planning applications, integrated fare payment, or integrated service delivery, most often through contracts of service Each level increases the complexity of the partnership in terms of liability, financial commit- ments, data-sharing, and monitoring and reporting requirements, and each level makes negotia- tions increasingly challenging.

Strategies, Implementation Resources, and Key Lessons Learned 113   11.6.1.3 Consider All Alternatives and Carefully Model Business Impacts As a result of the aforementioned reasons, all possible alternatives should be considered to address the problem or opportunity of interest, and care must be taken in assessing the potential benefits, costs, and related operational, organizational, and institutional challenges in order to define the type of partnership that is desired. 11.6.1.4 Regulatory Compliance Is a Major Issue in Negotiations with TNCs Partnerships with different shared-use mobility providers will raise different types of con- cerns. In that respect, experience has shown that partnerships between transit agencies and TNCs have raised some significant and specific challenges. One category of these challenges relates to meeting the regulatory compliance that is federally required of transit agencies and of all the services they operate, whether directly or under contract. Negotiating partnerships with TNCs in order to meet compliance with ADA, Title VI, drug and alcohol testing of drivers, and so on have proven particularly difficult and will require specific attention. Some of the resources in Subsection 11.6.2 from the Shared-Use Mobility Center (SUMC) and others illustrate experi- ence and provide guidance on this challenge. 11.6.1.5 Agreement on Data-Sharing Is a Major Challenge in Negotiations with TNCs Another category of challenges related to the sharing of data has proved a major challenge in negotiating partnerships with TNCs. Experience with the MOD Sandbox projects and other pilots show this to be a major obstacle given the gulf between transit agencies and TNCs in how they perceive the ownership, transparency, and use of the data resulting from providing their services. Transit agencies typically view data created under any service they contract for as belonging to the transit agency and required for their various reporting requirements. In addition, they often desire to have full access to the data to assist them with planning and future refinements to the integrated services. TNCs, on the other hand, view the data created by their mobile applications as part of their private intellectual property, which provides them with a business advantage in the competitive environment; they do not wish to have the data made public, which can occur as a result of open data regulations. In addition, they are sensitive to possible privacy concerns that may result from tracking the origins, destinations, and travel patterns of individuals. Finding a compromise between these two perspectives has proven very difficult, but some of the following guidance outlines some possible paths to negotiating a com- promise. Some of the suggestions include: • Understand what is absolutely required federally, in particular with respect to NTD reporting requirements. • Prepare to protect sensitive data. • Understand the TNC perspective. • Define must-have and nice-to-have partnership parameters. 11.6.2 Key Implementation Resources and References for Mobility Partnerships • Mobility on Demand (MOD) Sandbox evaluations, FTA, https://www.transit.dot.gov/research- innovation/mobility-demand-mod-sandbox-program FTA developed the MOD initiative to envision a multimodal, integrated, automated, accessible, and con- nected transportation system in which personalized mobility is a key feature. MOD allows for the use of on-demand information, real-time data, and predictive analysis to provide travelers with transportation choices that best serve their needs and circumstances. MOD leverages technologies that allow for a traveler- centric approach, which provides better mobility options for everyone.

114 Recent Decline in Public Transportation Ridership: Analysis, Causes, and Responses FTA’s MOD Sandbox Program provides a venue through which integrated MOD concepts and solutions— supported through local partnerships—are demonstrated in real-world settings. The objectives of FTA’s MOD Sandbox Program are to: – Enhance transit industry preparedness for MOD. – Assist the transit industry to develop the ability to integrate MOD practices with existing transit service. – Validate the technical and institutional feasibility of innovative MOD business models and document MOD best practices that may emerge from the demonstrations. – Measure the impacts of MOD on travelers and transportation systems. – Examine relevant public sector and federal requirements, regulations, and policies that may support or impede transit sector adoption of MOD. FTA awarded grants in 2016 to conduct 11 MOD projects. Each will be evaluated, and the evalua- tion reports provide a valuable resource to summarize experience and lessons learned. • SUMC Learning Center, https://learn.sharedusemobilitycenter.org/ The SUMC Learning Center is a self-guided learning forum to explore the possibilities of shared mobility. It provides a wealth of resources on experience and lessons learned, including learning modules; case studies; state-of-the-art tools; and a large library of shared-mobility policies, projects, reports, and multimedia. • SUMC Micromobility Policy Atlas, https://learn.sharedusemobilitycenter.org/atlas/? Among the valuable tools included in the SUMC Learning Center is the interactive Micromobility Policy Atlas, which classifies policies for shared bikes, e-bikes, and scooters across a dozen areas of regulation and management, providing information on guidelines, permits, and laws from around the world. Each policy page outlines operating rules, like parking and use of bike lanes; fleet size limits, fees, and fares; equity plans and requirements; data standards, communications, and geographic context guidelines; and links to original policy documents. • Grossman and Lewis, 2019, Contracting for Mobility: A Case Study in the Los Angeles and Puget Sound Regions, Eno Center for Transportation, https://www.enotrans.org/eno-resources/ contracting-for-mobility/ This paper covers the process that developed the contracts for the MOD Sandbox pilot projects in the Los Angeles and Puget Sound regions. It discusses the nuances of interactions between private companies and public agencies, including non-disclosure agreements; data-sharing; and the chal- lenges and opportunities faced by transit agencies and the MOD provider, as well as by the other entities involved in the service provision and evaluation of the project. It compares and contrasts how contracts developed between transit agencies, private sector providers, and researchers. It con- cludes with recommendations for how the contracting process can be improved to ensure better project outcomes. • Curtis et al., 2019, TCRP Research Report 204: Partnerships Between Transit Agencies and Transportation Network Companies (TNCs), Transportation Research Board, https://doi.org/ 10.17226/25576 Public transit agencies are increasingly partnering with TNCs. The transit industry has produced research to describe primary considerations that transit agencies should have in mind for partnerships with TNCs, but existing research has yet to identify specific project frameworks for transit agencies that have decided to pursue such partnerships. This report presents findings pertaining to data and information require- ments of both transit agencies and TNCs; the various benefits and outcomes that transit agencies, com- munities, and customers have pursued through partnerships; and the challenges faced by transit agencies in developing partnerships with TNCs. • Hernandez et al., 2018, TCRP Synthesis 132: Public Transit and Bikesharing, Transportation Research Board, https://doi.org/10.17226/25088 This report explores cooperative transit and bike-sharing relationships and documents the experiences of transit systems with bike-sharing as a mode. An increasing number of transit agencies have developed cooperative arrangements with bike-sharing programs to strengthen the relationship between the modes.

Strategies, Implementation Resources, and Key Lessons Learned 115   • TCRP J-11/Task 37: Transit and Micro-Mobility (Bikeshare, Scooter-share, etc.), https:// apps.trb.org/cmsfeed/TRBNetProjectDisplay.asp?ProjectID=4691 This ongoing research project has four key objectives, which include assessing the impact of micromobility on bus and rail transit ridership, identifying economic impacts of micromobility, assessing the impacts of the implementation of micromobility on the built environment (bike lanes, parking spaces, etc.), and finding ways to strengthen the relationship between micro-mobility and transit. 11.7 Encourage Transit-Oriented Density The research in this report shows that regions where density increased in the areas accessible by transit experienced growth in transit ridership. The challenge is that density is defined by metropolitan and municipal planning policies and by the practical zoning regulations put in place by municipalities, none of which are under the control of transit agencies. Nonetheless, transit agencies can play an important role in encouraging transit-oriented density. The following are some key implementation lessons to consider. 11.7.1 Key Implementation Considerations for Transit-Oriented Density 11.7.1.1 Increasing Transit-Oriented Density Is a Long-Term Process and Requires Transit Participation in Metropolitan-Level Vision and Planning The shaping of land use and the built urban form is a very long-term process that is structured through metropolitan and municipal planning efforts and policies. Many transit agencies tend to focus on shorter-term operations and planning considerations, and they often neglect to pay sufficient attention to longer-term efforts, such as those led by the MPO. It is important for transit agencies to participate actively in MPO planning efforts in order to articulate and pro- mote a metropolitan vision that will encourage and facilitate transit-oriented density. This will support longer-term efforts to strengthen the role of transit in the future. FTA commissioned a set of reports, titled Transit at the Table, that illustrate best practices and lessons learned regard- ing how transit agencies can successfully participate in MPOs and influence the development of vision and planning policies. 11.7.1.2 Develop Transit-Oriented Community Vision and Promote with Developers, Local Business Leaders, and Municipal Policymakers Many types of organizations participate in the development of land use and the built urban form. These include, by definition, the municipal planning staff that develops zoning regula- tions and approves and supervises the issuance of building permits; transit planning staffs often have a working relationship with their municipal planning counterparts. However, there are other important stakeholders that shape communities, including developers, business leaders, and municipal policy makers. Transit agencies should seek to develop and articulate a transit- oriented community vision, then find ways to communicate and promote this vision to these different stakeholders. For example, some transit agencies have developed detailed transit development guidelines that articulate their requirements and recommendations to ensure that developments can be successfully served by transit. However, beyond formal guidance docu- ments, building a common vision for a transit-oriented community will require an ongoing process of communication and education with developers, business leaders, municipal policy makers, and other key stakeholders to ensure that this vision is the basis of decisions or at least always considered.

116 Recent Decline in Public Transportation Ridership: Analysis, Causes, and Responses 11.7.1.3 Build Ongoing Partnership with Municipal Planners to Develop Zoning and Shape Development Through Review of Development Plans and Important Building Permits Transit-oriented communities are created not only through the adoption of broad plan- ning visions in official long-term municipal plans, but also through the detailed zoning that governs development and the case-by-case permitting of developments and building permits, which are the responsibility of municipal planners. Not all transit agencies participate or even have a voice in the development process, whether it be in the drafting of zoning and other regulations or in the review of major developments. The transit agency needs to develop part- nerships with municipal planners to ensure that transit is consulted in development policies and major decisions. 11.7.2 Key Implementation Resources and References for Transit-Oriented Density • Hoover et al., 2004, Transit at the Table: A Guide to Participation in Metropolitan Decision- making, FTA, https://www.planning.dot.gov/Documents/TransitAtTable.pdf This report presents the observations, perspectives, and recommendations of a cross-section of transit agencies from large metropolitan areas on how to secure strategic positions in the metropolitan planning process. More importantly, the report can be a guide on how to use those positions to win policy and pro- gram support for priority transit services. The challenges to achieving full decision-making partnerships in regional settings, the most effective strategies for addressing these challenges, and the rewards of part- nerships are presented by transit industry leaders using their own experiences. Key findings of the report were also used in preparing a self-assessment checklist for transit operators in assessing their profile and participation in metropolitan planning. • Roisman et al., 2010, Transit at the Table II: A Guide to Participation in Metropolitan Trans- portation Decisionmaking for Transit Agencies in Small- and Medium-Sized MPOs, FTA, https://www.planning.dot.gov/documents/TransPlanning/TransTableII.pdf The purpose of the Transit at the Table II project is to answer the question, “Why should transit agencies in small- and medium-sized urban areas (population < 200,000) participate in the metropolitan planning process?” This report discusses the observations, perspectives, and recommendations of regional decision makers regarding transit agency participation in MPOs. It details how transit agencies secured strategic positions in the metropolitan planning process and the results they obtained in an effort to educate and energize transit agencies in small- and medium-sized areas in taking a seat at the MPO “table.” The report examines how to win policy and program support for transit services at the MPO level and provides spe- cific examples of benefits realized by transit operators in small- and medium-sized metropolitan areas. This effort builds on a previous study that focused on MPOs representing the largest urbanized areas (population > 200,000). The report also identifies commonalities and differences between the “transit at the table” experiences of operators in large metropolitan areas and those in small- and medium-sized ones. • WSP–Parsons Brinckerhoff et al., 2015, TCRP Report 182: Linking Transit Agencies and Land Use Decision Making: Guidebook for Transit Agencies, Transportation Research Board, https://doi.org/10.17226/24629 This report addresses improved transit and land use decision making by providing transit agencies with the tools that may help them become more effective at the decision-making table. The tools, which build on successful transit and land use decision-making experiences throughout the United States, can help transit agencies self-assess their readiness to participate effectively in the land use decision-making process and help improve their interactions with key stakeholders in the process, including local governments and developers. • Christopher, 2006, TCRP Synthesis 67: Bus Transit Service in Land Development Planning, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, https://doi.org/10.17226/14002 This synthesis examines successful strategies that assist in the incorporation of bus transit service into land developments, as well as the challenges that transit agencies face when attempting to do so. The synthesis also explores the state of the practice regarding the use and components of transit agency development guidelines.

Strategies, Implementation Resources, and Key Lessons Learned 117   11.8 Future Transit Ridership Impacts Over the past year, the transit industry has been hit by what may be its biggest challenge to date: a pandemic that uniformly discourages close proximity between people, which transit depends on to be the most spatially efficient mode. Across cities, the research team saw signifi- cant declines in rail ridership, as rail modes are often used by workers that have work-from- home options. The team also saw declines in bus ridership, although much of the lower-income and critical workforce populations that buses often serve are still riding transit out of necessity. As everyone moves forward, researchers are still trying to understand the longer-term impacts that the pandemic might have on mobility and public transit in particular. Using the findings in this report as a basis, a few key ideas emerge: • Telecommuting impacts on transit will likely continue. Already before the pandemic, the impacts of telecommuting could be seen. During the pandemic these impacts have been sub- stantial and inevitable. However, as the pandemic subsides, it is likely that many firms will retain some telecommuting practices; this will likely change expectations around the model of five days per week at the office and reduce the gap between peak hours and off-peak demand. • Population density may continue to decline. Population densities were also decreasing already before the pandemic, offsetting increases in transit ridership being seen from popula- tion increases. It remains to be seen how the public will react in the longer term, but with more flexibility in job locations comes more flexibility in living locations and a need for greater space in the home. • Low gas prices hurt transit ridership. During the pandemic, on April 20, 2020, oil prices dropped below zero for the first time in history. As congestion has increased, gas prices have as well, but gas prices have generally stayed very low. If lower demand is sustained, it could continue to keep gas prices low, making driving a much cheaper option and adversely impacting transit ridership. • Potential exists for higher transit fares. Similarly, driving may stay cheap compared to transit if transit agencies raise fares as they begin to recover their financial losses during the pandemic. The key to making transit affordable is high ridership on a per vehicle hour basis. With low ridership per vehicle hour, transit has to be subsidized to keep it affordable. • Impact on new modes is unknown. Ride-hailing services also require shared space, similar to transit. Although ride-hailing use was growing rapidly before the pandemic, its future trajectory and resulting impact on transit remains to be seen. Although the coming years may continue to be challenging, the transit industry is filled with champions who are eager to rise to the task of creating a more resilient and sustainable trans- portation system.