Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

17TCS Transit: Who's on board? Transit enhancements that increase ridership

331 views

Published on

Moderator: Jennifer Dill, Portland State University Speakers: April Bertelsen, City of Portland; Keith Bartholomew, University of Utah; Adam Parast, City of Seattle

Published in: Education
  • What if you had a printing press that could spit out hundred dollar bills on demand? Do you think that would change your life? ●●● http://t.cn/AisJWYf4
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
  • Best survey site online! $1,500 a month thanks to you guys! Without a doubt the best paid surveys site online!I have made money from other survey sites but made double or triple with GoldOpinions.com for the same time and effort. The variety and number of daily paid surveys I get from them is unmatched. A must for anyone looking for extra cash or a full time income. ♣♣♣ http://t.cn/AieX2Loq
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
  • $25 per hour jobs on Facebook, now hiring! ♥♥♥ https://tinyurl.com/rbrfd6j
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
  • Be the first to like this

17TCS Transit: Who's on board? Transit enhancements that increase ridership

  1. 1. Gimme Shelter . . . and a Bench and Schedule Information JA YOUNG KIM, KEITH BARTHOLOMEW & REID EWING University of Utah Transportation & Communities Summit Portland, 9/11/2017 : Effects of Bus Stop Amenity Investments
  2. 2. Source: Google Street View
  3. 3. Colesville Road and Crestmoor Drive, Silver Spring, MD Source: Google Street View 2016 Sorriest Bus Stop in America by STREETBLOG
  4. 4. Introduction • Improving bus stop amenities is relatively inexpensive and popular with local officials and riders, but it is usually not high on priority lists. • With limited capital investment budgets, public transportation providers need to demonstrate reasonable returns on the investments from their decisions made among many choices.
  5. 5. Our research measures ridership and paratransit demand associated recent Utah Transit Authority (UTA) investments in bus stop enhancements. Research Problem Statement • Ridership outcomes after the implementation of bus stop amenities • Impacts on Paratransit service near the study area Preliminary Study
  6. 6. • Ridership A positive relationship between transit stop level amenities and ridership, but a lack of control of other variables (Brown et al., 2006; Litman, 2008; Talbott, 2011; TCRP 1999) • Paratransit Demand Cost of paratransit > Cost of fixed-route transit Focus on providing stop amenities in response to expected demand (Balog et al., 1992; Lave & Mathias, 2000; Tyler, 2016; Wu et al., 2001). Literature
  7. 7. Bus Stop Amenity Implementation Sites Before After
  8. 8. Bus Stop Amenity Implementation Sites Before After
  9. 9. Bus Stop Amenity Implementation Sites Before After
  10. 10. • Before & after improvement observations on bus ridership & paratransit deployment - treatment group (bus stops that were improved) - control group (bus stops nearby that were not improved) • Study A: - time period: the first 6 months of 2014 and 2015 - control group: different part of the same route • Study B: - time period: the first 6 months of 2014 and 2016 - control group: different route Corridor Analysis Methods
  11. 11. Corridor Study A
  12. 12. • A quarter mile network buffer around bus stops to find changes in paratransit ridership in waking distance Corridor Study A
  13. 13. Corridor Study B Treatment Group (N=11) Bus Line #41 Control Group (N=11) Bus Line #39
  14. 14. Corridor Study B Treatment Group Control Group Basic Description Bus Route # 41 (4100 South) 39 (3900 South) Number of Bus Stops 11 11 Number of Block Groups 10 10 Demographic Total Population 22,116 17,109 Total Household 7,950 6,920 Median Household Income $ 37,707 $ 42,632 Household with senior 1,260 1,415 Employment Residence-based 11,906 9,093 Workplace-based 8,182 8,228 Means to work Public Transportation 430 558
  15. 15. • 5.9% increase in bus ridership after bus stop amenity improvements • 1.7% increase in bus ridership in control group 2015 2015 2014 2014 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 Control Group Treatment Group Change in Bus Ridership from January to June between 2014 & 2015 + 5.9% + 1.7% Corridor Study A: Result
  16. 16. • 9 % decrease in paratransit deployment around bus stops after amenity improvements • 28.4% increase in control group 2015 2015 2014 2014 0 200 400 600 800 1000 Control Group Treatment Group Change in Paratransit Deployment from January to June between 2014 & 2015 - 9.0% + 28.4% Corridor Study A: Result
  17. 17. • 5.2% increase in bus ridership after bus stop amenity improvements • 2.6% increase in bus ridership in control group Corridor Study B: Result 2016 2016 2014 2014 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 Control Group Treatment Group Change in Bus Ridership from January to June between 2014 & 2015 + 5.2% + 2.6%
  18. 18. 2016 2016 2014 2014 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 Control Group Treatment Group Change in Paratransit Deployment from January to June between 2014 & 2015 - 7.4% + 8.9% • 7.4% decrease in paratransit deployment around bus stops after amenity improvements • 8.9% increase in control group Corridor Study B: Result
  19. 19. • Before & after improvement observations on bus ridership & paratransit deployment • Before: March 1, 2013-Feb 28, 2014 • After: March 1, 2016-Feb 28, 2016 • treatment group (bus stops that were improved) • control group (statistically similar bus stops that were not improved) Paired Stop Analysis Methods
  20. 20. Propensity Score Matching • Binary logistic regression model controlling for Demographics (10 variables) Land Use/Transit Service (7 variables) • Before matching  control group stops (n=2,221) significantly different from treatment group stops for all control variables • After matching  control group stops (n=24) not significantly different from treatment group stops (n=24) for any control variable Paired Stop Analysis Methods
  21. 21. Paired Stop Analysis Methods Variables Before Matching (Mean) After Matching (Mean) Stops Improved 2014-16 Un- Improved Stops Mean Diff. Stops Improved 2014-16 Un- Improved Stops Mean Diff. Total Household 2,083 1,705 378* 2,021 2,129 -108 Household Size 2.36 2.82 -0.47*** 2.53 2.49 0.04 % Non-Hispanic White Population 60.95 68.94 -7.99** 58.48 59.88 -1.40 % Population 65 years and over 9.19 10.88 -1.69** 8.52 8.25 0.27 % Household Living Alone 43.55 29.55 14.00*** 38.33 40.79 -2.45 % Students in College 13.45 10.65 2.81* 12.28 13.01 -0.73 Median Household Income 39,910 55,185 -15,275*** 41,029 40,777 252 % Population with Annual HH Income below Poverty Level 24.46 16.80 7.66*** 23.95 22.34 1.61 % Renter Occupied Household 69.13 44.33 24.80*** 65.42 66.10 -0.67 % Household without Vehicle Available 16.44 8.32 8.11*** 13.29 13.79 -0.51 Activity Density 15,082 8,357 6,724*** 13,303 12,610 693 Job Population Balance 0.29 0.55 -0.26*** 0.32 0.38 -0.07 Entropy 0.83 0.69 0.14*** 0.83 0.77 0.06 % of 4 Way Intersection 0.39 0.27 0.12*** 0.37 0.35 0.02 Transit Stop Density 38.63 25.32 13.31*** 33.58 36.42 -2.83 % Regional Destination in 20 min by Car 56.31 54.62 1.69** 56.75 55.96 0.78 % Regional Destination in 30 min by Transit 24.66 19.83 4.83*** 24.01 23.70 0.32 Number of Bus Stops 30 2,221 24 24
  22. 22. Paired Stop Analysis Results
  23. 23. Paired Stop Analysis Results
  24. 24. A bus shelter is not a luxury.
  25. 25. Thanks to Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) and Utah Transit Authority (UTA) Contact : Keith Bartholomew bartholomew@arch.utah.edu Ja Young Kim jy.kim@utah.edu University of Utah Planning Degree Programs B.S. in Urban Ecology Master of City & Metropolitan Planning Ph.D. in Metropolitan Planning, Policy & Design
  26. 26. Enhanced Transit April Bertelsen Transportation & Communities Summit September 7, 2017
  27. 27. What is Enhanced Transit? New!
  28. 28. Mixed traffic Priority treatments Exclusive guideway Local buses Regional bus Frequent Service bus Streetcar Corridor based Bus Rapid Transit Bus Rapid Transit Rapid Streetcar Light Rail Commuter Rail Tram Enhanced Transit High Capacity Transit REGIONAL TRANSIT SPECTRUM Service Enhancement Plans/Master Plans
  29. 29. Characteristics of Enhanced Transit • Increased capacity, reliability and transit travel speed • Moderate capital and operational investments • Flexible and context sensitive • Can be deployed relatively quickly • Could be a hot spot, corridor or full line • Can include bus or streetcar The Vine recently opened in Vancouver, WA
  30. 30. Laneways and Intersection Treatments Dedicated Bus Lane Business Access and Transit (BAT) Lane
  31. 31. Laneways and Intersection Treatments Pro-Time (Peak Period Only) Transit Lane Intersection Queue Jump/Right Turn Except Bus Lane SE Madison morning peak hour
  32. 32. Stops and Stations Bus Stop Consolidation
  33. 33. Operations/Other Transit Signal Priority and Signal Improvements
  34. 34. Why Enhanced Transit? Answer: We need to do more to support transit in the Portland region
  35. 35. Buses are a “work horse” and carry significant ridership regionally, up there with MAX
  36. 36. Mode Split: How Portland residents got to work Sources: Census 2000, American Community Survey 2010, 2014 Transit ridership is not growing adequately to support growth.
  37. 37. Buses are getting stuck in traffic and trips take longer
  38. 38. Questions/Discussion Transit Delay During Peak Congestion Time
  39. 39. We are growing.… New growth is happening in areas in need of better transit service and access.
  40. 40. Portland’s ETC Plan Goals (TGM grant) • Increase transit ridership and improve experience of current riders. • Support planned growth consistent with the 2035 Portland Comprehensive Plan. • Define and identify “Enhanced Transit Corridors” in Portland. • Establish a program with clear and objective operational performance measures and thresholds to define what success looks like. • Guide prioritization of capital and operational investments to achieve success.
  41. 41. Candidate Corridors Selected for Initial Study Corridors with most need and potential now
  42. 42. Initial Evaluation: Criteria and Measures • Ridership: Average Existing Weekday Transit Trips • Reliability: Delay due to traffic congestion • Transit Speed: Where buses are slower all day • Dwell Time: When the doors are open at bus stops • Equity: Higher number of People of Color, Low Income, Limited English Proficiency • Growth: Forecasted increase in population and jobs
  43. 43. ETC Plan Next Steps • Plan Elements 1. Test toolbox in select corridors and identify potential actions and investments 2. Define success & acceptable levels of service 3. Include on-going performance measures and thresholds for action • More public outreach in fall 2017 • Return to Council with recommendations: 1. Adopt a plan 2. Establish a Enhanced Transit Program
  44. 44. Closer look with ETC Consultant Team (up to 3 corridors) Closer look through other upcoming plans/projects Recommended Corridor: Analysis with ETC Toolbox
  45. 45. ETC Capital/Operational Toolbox (20 tools that can be applied on streets)
  46. 46. A Call to Action: Defining & monitoring success
  47. 47. Potential Measures For Consideration • Transit Delay: How much the bus is slowed down due to congestion at peak travel time • Passenger Delay: Transit Delay X # of passengers per bus line • Transit Capacity: ridership density at peak load point • Transit travel time or transit speed trends over multiple years: Does it take longer to complete a transit trip? Is a line getting slower?
  48. 48. Learn more. www.portlandoregon.gov/transportation/ETCplan Questions
  49. 49. Who’s On Board? Jennifer Dill, Ph.D., Professor & Director, Portland State University Trustee, TransitCenter
  50. 50. Who We Are / What We Do TransitCenter is a foundation working to improve public transportation and urban mobility, through grantmaking, research, training, and events.
  51. 51. Who’s On Board? Who’s On Board 2016 • Online survey of 3,000 transit riders in 17 cities. • Focus group discussions: Raleigh, Denver, New York City. 3
  52. 52. Focus on how people use transit Occasional Uses transit at most 1 day/week All-purpose Uses transit at least 2 days/week for multiple purposes Commuter Uses transit at least 2 days/week for work; rarely for other purposes 53% of respondents 13% of trips (estimated) Avg. AllTransit home score: 6.6 Avg. AllTransit work score: 7.2 72% own cars 21% use bikes, taxis, or shared-use modes weekly 14% of respondents 32% of trips (estimated) Avg. AllTransit home score: 6.7 Avg. AllTransit home score: 9.1 70% own cars 11% use bikes, taxis, or shared-use modes weekly 32% of respondents 56% of trips (estimated) Avg. AllTransit home score: 7.9 Avg. AllTransit work score: 8.5 30% own cars 32% use bikes, taxis, or shared-use modes weekly
  53. 53. Walkability and transit • Most transit riders typically access transit on foot • Especially true for all- purpose riders Occasional: Uses transit at most 1 day/week Commuter: Uses transit at least 2 days/week for work; rarely for other purposes All-purpose: Uses transit at least 2 days/week for multiple purposes Typical Access Mode to Transit, by Segment
  54. 54. Frequency and travel time matter 100 93 85 75 75 71 62 59 57 55 31 1 Higher frequency Faster travel time on bus Lower fare Real-time info at stop, app Shelter at bus stop Eliminate transfer More fare payment options More available seating Better on-time performance Bus stop closer to home Trees + sidewalks en route to stop Power outlets + Wi-Fi on bus Desired Improvements to Hypothetical Bus Route, Ranked
  55. 55. @TransitCenter Frequency and travel time matter
  56. 56. Takeaways Make it easy to walk to transit – and concentrate transit improvements in walkable neighborhoods. Design networks to emphasize frequency. Use street design and operating strategies to improve travel time. Transit competes for every rider. 8 December 2016Who’s On Board?8 @shigashide
  57. 57. transitcenter.org | alltransit.cnt.org A host of resources for improving transit in your community
  58. 58. Transit enhancements that increase ridership – RapidRide September 2017 1
  59. 59. Our mission, vision, and core values Committed to 5 core values to create a city that is: • Safe • Interconnected • Affordable • Vibrant • Innovative For all Mission: deliver a high-quality transportation system for Seattle Vision: connected people, places, and products 2
  60. 60. Presentation Overview 1. What is RapidRide? 1. Existing and Future System 2. RapidRide Features 3. SDOT & Metro Partnership 2. How has RapidRide Performed? 1. Ridership 2. Enhanced Service 3. Travel Times 4. Reliability 5. Comfort & Security 3. Closing Thoughts and Questions 3
  61. 61. What is RapidRide?
  62. 62. Existing RapidRide System • Launched 2010 • Best of Metro – Frequent service – Easy to use – Best of Metro • 6 current lines, 3 in Seattle – C Line: West Seattle to Downtown – D Line: Ballard to Downtown – E Line: Shoreline to Downtown 5 Current RapidRide system
  63. 63. Future Seattle RapidRide System • Upgrades 7 lines • Adds 50,000 daily riders by 2035 • Creates over a 60-mile network • Offers 10-minute or better service 6 Representative map Lines subject to change
  64. 64. Metro RapidRide Features 7
  65. 65. Features – Dedicated Bus Lanes 8
  66. 66. Features – Enhanced Bus Stops 9 Source: Oran Viriyincy
  67. 67. Features – Off-Board Fare Payment 10 Source: SDOT
  68. 68. Elements – Brand & Specialized Buses 11Source: Metro
  69. 69. BEFORE Westlake & Denny AFTER Elements – Smart Signals Source: SDOT
  70. 70. SDOT & Metro Partnership • Past – corridors lead by Metro • Future – corridors delivered through a SDOT & Metro partnership – Program level agreement in development – Includes finical commitment from both agencies – Represents shared goals – Aligns agency role with tools 13
  71. 71. How has RapidRide Performed?
  72. 72. Overall Performance Strong Performance • Increased Ridership • Enhanced & Frequent Service • Faster Travel Times Variable Results • Reliable Service • Comfortable, Safe, and Secure 16 Source: RapidRide Performance Evaluation Report, 2014
  73. 73. - 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 18,000 20,000 A B C D E F Pre-RapidRide Corridor Fall 2014 Spring 2016 Increased Ridership 17 +83% +32% +130% +84% +48% +54% Average Weekday Boardings
  74. 74. Enhanced & Frequent Service • “Very satisfied” riders increase for all routes • Gains in total satisfaction vary based on existing satisfaction – Large gains for E – Smaller gains for C & D • Since survey, STBD has increased C & D service by 37% 18
  75. 75. Faster Travel Times • Savings between 3-19% during peak periods: – C Line: 9-19%, ~15% avg – D Line: 5-12%, ~9% avg – E Line: 3-9%, 6% avg • Note: – Savings vary by route, time of day, and direction – Existing conditions and level of transit priority impact savings – Planning estimates were overly optimistic (17-35%) 19 C Line Travel Time Percent Change D Line Travel Time Percent Change E Line Travel Time Percent Change AM AMPM PM NB SB AM AMPM PM NB SB AM AMPM PM NB SB
  76. 76. 74.0% 76.0% 78.0% 80.0% 82.0% 84.0% 86.0% 88.0% Nov-10 Apr-12 Aug-13 Dec-14 May-16 Sep-17 A Line B Line C Line D Line E Line F Line Reliable Service 20 Headway Adherence
  77. 77. Comfortable, Safe, and Secure • Varies by route and existing context – Fare inspectors can improve feeling of personal safety – Compared to commuter oriented services, concerns about crowding and the behavior of other passengers at stops or on the bus may increase 21
  78. 78. 22 Seattle RapidRide Goals
  79. 79. Closing Thoughts • Don’t forget the power of frequent service • Plan for ridership growth • Evaluate and adjust system once built • Build partnerships, transit agencies need support from cities • Context matters, not all corridors are the same • Reassess transit network when implementing 23
  80. 80. Question & Answer Adam Parast, Senior Transportation Planner RapidRide@seattle.gov www.seattle.gov/transportation/rapidrideexpansion.htm

×