Is Transit Part of the Equation? Is Transit Part of the Equation? Travel Data Users Forum: How Will...

Is Transit Part of the Equation?Is Transit Part of the Equation?

Travel Data Users Forum: How Will the Changing Cost of Energy Affect Personal Travel?

Session 681 Wednesday, January 16, 2008, 10:15 AM - 12:00 PM, Hilton

Steven E. Polzin, PhDCUTR, USF

CommentsComments• Historical & theoretical relationship between

fuel price and transit use

• The availability and economics of shifting to transit

• Data for understanding fuel price and transit use

• Transit opportunities and challenges

Impact of Fuel Prices on Mode Choice Impact of Fuel Prices on Mode Choice

Social, Political & EconomicConditions

Fuel Price

Fuel Supply

Mode Choice

Transit:• Availability• Cost• Time

Auto Travel Cost:• Vehicle type• Trip length• Occupancy

Public Attitudes: • Climate change • Energy Independence• Environment

Annual Change in Population, VMT and Transit

-6%

-4%

-2%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%1

97

0

19

72

19

74

19

76

19

78

19

80

19

82

19

84

19

86

19

88

19

90

19

92

19

94

19

96

19

98

20

00

20

02

20

04

20

06

Percent Change in VMT

Percent Change in Transit

Percent Change in Population

Annual Change in Transit and Gas Price

-25%

-15%

-5%

5%

15%

25%

35%

19

90

19

92

19

94

19

96

19

98

20

00

20

02

20

04

20

06

Percent Change in Transit

Percent Change in Gas Price

Observations:Observations:

Research in 2007 established that for every 10% increase in gas prices, US transit demand has increased by around 1.2%, a cross elasticity of demand to gas prices (e) of 0.12 [2]. The same research demonstrated much higher effects on US light rail systems; e= 0.27 to 0.38 (i.e. between two and three times higher than aggregate values) while heavy rail values were e=0.17 and bus was insensitive (e=0.04). These patterns are clearly of much interest to transit planners, however a need for further research has been identified to explore causal patterns further [2].

Understanding Links Between Transit Ridership and Auto GasPrices – US and Australian EvidencePAPER NUMBER 08-0153

Currie, G. and J. Phung, Transit Ridership, Auto Gas Prices and World Events – New Drivers ofChange. Transportation Research Record, Journal of the Transportation Research Board,Washington DC (Forthcomming), 2007.

8

Almost 50 % of households nationally live within 1/2 mile of a bus route

Figure 2 Cumulative Distribution of Household Distance to Bus Line

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

<=

.15

.31

- .4

5.6

1 -

.75

.91

- 1.

051.

21 -

1.3

51.

51 -

1.6

51.

81 -

1.9

52.

11 -

2.2

52.

41 -

2.5

52.

71 -

2.8

53.

01 -

3.1

53.

31 -

3.4

53.

61 -

3.7

53.

91 -

4.0

54.

21 -

4.3

54.

51 -

4.6

54.

81 -

4.9

54.

96 -

5.1

05.

11 -

13

>13

- 2

1>

21 -

29

>29

- 3

7>

37 -

45

>45

- 5

2>

52 -

60

>60

- 6

8>

68 -

76

>76

- 8

4>

84 -

92

Distance in Miles (note scale break at 5.11 miles)

Pe

rce

nt

of

Ho

use

ho

lds

9

Approximately 10 % of the nation’s population lives within one mile of a rail

station

Figure 3 Cumulative Distribution of Household Distance to Rail Stop/Station

0%20%40%

60%80%

100%

<=

.15

.31

- .4

5.6

1 -

.75

.91

- 1.

051.

21 -

1.3

51.

51 -

1.6

51.

81 -

1.9

52.

11 -

2.2

52.

41 -

2.5

52.

71 -

2.8

53.

01 -

3.1

53.

31 -

3.4

53.

61 -

3.7

53.

91 -

4.0

54.

21 -

4.3

54.

51 -

4.6

54.

81 -

4.9

54.

96 -

5.1

05.

11 -

88

>88

- 1

71>

171

- 25

4>

254

- 33

7>

420

- 50

0>

500

- 58

5

Distance in Miles (note scale break at 5.11 miles)

Pe

rce

nt

of

Ho

use

ho

lds

Figure 3 Cumulative Distribution of Household Distance to Rail Stop/Station

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

<=

.15

.31

- .4

5.6

1 -

.75

.91

- 1.

051.

21 -

1.3

51.

51 -

1.6

51.

81 -

1.9

52.

11 -

2.2

52.

41 -

2.5

52.

71 -

2.8

53.

01 -

3.1

53.

31 -

3.4

53.

61 -

3.7

53.

91 -

4.0

54.

21 -

4.3

54.

51 -

4.6

54.

81 -

4.9

54.

96 -

5.1

05.

11 -

88

>88

- 1

71>

171

- 25

4>

254

- 33

7>

420

- 50

0>

500

- 58

5

Distance in Miles (note scale break at 5.11 miles)

Pe

rce

nt

of

Ho

use

ho

lds

10

About 50 % of households interviewed in the 1995 NPTS believed they lived

within 1/4 mile from a public bus route

Figure 4 Cumulative Distribution of Person Distance to Bus Route

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

<= .1 .11 - .24 .25 - .49 .50 - .99 >1.0

Distance in Miles

Per

cent

of

Hou

seho

lds

Distance to Buslines in Milesfrom Household

Distance to Transit Perceived inNPTS 1995

(2001 NHTS)

11

Figure 5 Cumulative Distribution of Distance from Work to Bus Route

0%20%40%60%80%

100%

<=

.15

.31

- .4

5.6

1 -

.75

.91

- 1.

051.

21 -

1.3

51.

51 -

1.6

51.

81 -

1.9

52.

11 -

2.2

52.

41 -

2.5

52.

71 -

2.8

53.

01 -

3.1

53.

31 -

3.4

53.

61 -

3.7

53.

91 -

4.0

54.

21 -

4.3

54.

51 -

4.6

54.

81 -

4.9

54.

96 -

5.1

05.

11 -

13

>13

- 2

1>

21 -

29

>29

- 3

7>

37 -

44

>44

- 5

2>

52 -

60

>60

- 6

8>

68 -

76

>76

- 84

>84

- 9

2>

92 -

100

Distance in Miles (note scale break at 5.11 miles)

Perc

ent o

f Work

place

s

About 60% of people work within one-half mile of a bus route

12

Figure 6 Cumulative Distribution of Distance fromWork to Rail Stop

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

<=

.15

.31

- .4

5.6

1 -

.75

.91

- 1.

051.

21 -

1.3

51.

51 -

1.6

51.

81 -

1.9

52.

11 -

2.2

52.

41 -

2.5

52.

71 -

2.8

53.

01 -

3.1

53.

31 -

3.4

53.

61 -

3.7

53.

91 -

4.0

54.

21 -

4.3

54.

51 -

4.6

54.

81 -

4.9

54.

96 -

5.1

05.

11 -

96

>96

- 1

88>

188

- 27

9>

279

- 37

0>

370

- 46

0

Distance in Miles (note scale break at 5.11 miles)

Perc

ent o

f Work

pla

ces

About 10% of the population works within one-half mile of a rail stop

Gas Cost Versus Transit

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Distance

MP

G

$1.575 of $3 fuel

One Gallon of Fuel

$1.575 of $4.50 fuelHow

far c

an y

ou d

rive

on o

ne “

fare

’s”

wor

th o

f Gas

?

Trip Length Distribution of Commute Trips

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Distance

Co

mm

ute

Sh

are

Assuming $3 gas, 20 mpg efficiency, and $1.50 fares, commuters could travel10 miles for the cost of transitThus 57% of folks would not save out of pocket costs on transit.

15

Fleet characteristics and related fuel costs are changing…

Percent of Household Vehicles

Average MPG*

Cost per Mile in 2001

Cost per Mile in 2006

Car 59.9% 22.4 6.3 cents 14.1 centsVan 9.4% 18.4 7.5 cents 16.6 centsSUV 12.5% 16.7 8.2 cents 18.4 centsPick-Up 18.2% 16.9 8.3 cents 18.3 cents

Overall 100.0% 20.3 7.0 cents 15.6 cents* Fuel Efficiency Provided by the Energy Information Agency

Base: 2001 NHTS data and 2006 updated fuel costs

Modal Efficiencies, BTUs/PMT

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

BT

Us/

PM

T

Cars Buses Rail Transit

TRANSPORTATION ENERGY DATA BOOK: EDITION 26–2007Table 2.13 Energy Intensities of Highway Passenger Modes, 1970–2005Light trucks not shown.

17

Fuel use also varies by trip purpose….

$0.00

$0.50

$1.00

$1.50

$2.00

$2.50

CA

R

VA

N

SU

V

P-U

CA

R

VA

N

SU

V

P-U

CA

R

VA

N

SU

V

P-U

Shopping Social/Rec Work

Fue

l Cos

t for

Ave

rage

Trip

Source: National Household Travel Survey Data Series (NHTS), FHWA

Challenges of Determining Fuel Price Impacts

Detailed analysis is only possible at local level and then may be impossible due to data/resource constraints.

Extremely difficult to factor out economic, service, fare, marketing, demographic or other confounding factors.

What Additional Data Would Help

Aggregate transit use data is old APC data can provide more specific

trip length data for analysis A basis for normalizing to adjust for

local fuel costs, population growth, service supply, fare levels, economic activity, etc.

Can Transit Secure an Efficiency Advantage?

New CAFE standards Improving transit efficiency

Vehicle technology and fuel (vehicle life cycle)

Service speed Service productivity Matching vehicle/mode to market Disciplining the provision of amenities

21

One last thing…How long will it take for standards on new vehicles to make an impact?

6.6

7.6 7.7

8.3

8.9

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1977 1983 1990 1995 2001

The average vehicle is now nearly 9 years old

Source: NHTS Data Series, 1977 - 2001

22

Agency

Pass. Mi./Veh.

Mi.Fuel

(MPG)Passenger

MPGMCAT 1.45 3.79 5.5Citrus Connection 4.31 3.36 14.5ECAT 3.95 4.22 16.6StarMetro 5.84 3.24 18.9LeeTran 4.78 4.23 20.2PSTA 5.21 4.08 21.2SCAT 5.02 4.36 21.9JTA 5.77 3.79 21.9PCTS 1.04 21.17 21.9VOTRAN 5.66 4.22 23.9HART 7.16 3.69 26.4SCAT 4.37 6.36 27.8MDT 8.13 3.46 28.1RTS 9.55 3.21 30.6PalmTran 6.87 4.52 31.1PCPT 4.82 6.53 31.5LYNX 10.22 3.65 37.2BCT 9.39 4.10 38.4

15 EPA MPG Ford Explorer

23 EPA MPG Toyota Camry

26 with 2 Occ.  Escalade

48 EPA MPG Toyota Prius2005 NTD data

23

Competition Will Change

24

Transit Must Be Faster

CUTR analysis of 2001 NPTS data

Average speed of door-to-door person trips (mph)Mode FL USCar 27.8 31.0Van 29.3 31.7SUV 28.1 33.0Pickup truck 29.6 33.7Other truck 44.4 42.4RV 26.1 45.1Motorcycle 25.8 32.2Local public transit bus 5.5 7.9Commuter bus 20.5 17.1

25Source: NTD Data, CUTR Analysis

26Source: NTD Data, CUTR Analysis

27

Source: NTD Data, CUTR Analysis

Passenger Miles Per Revenue Vehicle Mile

How Might Transit Deploy Resources to Respond to a Serious

Price Increase or Shortage?

Deploy to longer/faster trips Implement priority treatments Build reserve fleets

29

Thank You