Changes in Travel Behavior Affecting Transit

TRB Executive Committee Wednesday, January 10, 2018

Steven E. Polzin, PhD.

Outline

What is going on with travel

What factors are influencing transit use

Critical Issues going forward

U.S. Context and Travel Trends 2015/2014 2016/2015 2017/2016 YTD Months Source

U.S. Population 0.8% 0.5% 0.7% - Census

Total Employment 1.7% 1.7% 1.2% 11 BLS

Real GDP 2.9% 1.5% 2.2% 9 BEA (3rd estimate)

Gas Price -29.3% -14.8% 15.0% 11 EIA

Registered Cars and Light Trucks 2.1% 1.5% 3.0% 12 proj. Hedges

Co.

Light Vehicle Sales 5.8% 0.1% -1.5% 11 BEA

VMT 3.5% 2.8% 1.3% 10 FHWA

Public Transit Ridership -1.0% to -2.2% -2.3% to -1.6% -3.1% 9 APTA and

NTD

Amtrak Ridership (FY) -0.3% 1.9% 2.3% 8 Amtrak

Airline Passengers 5.3% 3.9% 3.2% 9 USDOT, BTS

National VMT and VMT per Capita Trend, Moving 12-Month Total, 1990–2016

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

Jan-

92Ja

n-93

Jan-

94Ja

n-95

Jan-

96Ja

n-97

Jan-

98Ja

n-99

Jan-

00Ja

n-01

Jan-

02Ja

n-03

Jan-

04Ja

n-05

Jan-

06Ja

n-07

Jan-

08Ja

n-09

Jan-

10Ja

n-11

Jan-

12Ja

n-13

Jan-

14Ja

n-15

Jan-

16Ja

n-17

VM

T pe

r Cap

ita, A

nnua

l

Vehi

cle-

Dis

tanc

e Tr

avel

ed (B

illio

n M

iles)

Annual Vehicle-DistanceTraveled (Billion Miles)

VMT per Capita

8 year reprieve

National VMT & Household Income of Bottom 80% of US Households

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

3,000,000

3,500,000

4,000,000

4,500,000

5,000,000

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

1930

1935

1940

1945

1950

1955

1960

1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

Tota

l Hou

seho

ld in

com

e of

Bot

tom

80%

in B

illio

ns 2

015

VMT

(Bill

ions

)

VMT Total (Billions)

Household Income ofBottom 80% (2015 $Millions)

0

2,500

5,000

7,500

10,000

12,500

15,000

17,500

20,000

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

1930

1935

1940

1945

1950

1955

1960

1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

GDP

in B

illio

ns o

f 201

6 U

S Do

llars

VMT

(bill

ions

)

VMT Total (Billions)

GDP in 2016 dollars($Billions)

National VMT & GDP Trends

U.S. Transit Ridership and Ridership per Capita

020406080100120140160180200

0

5

10

15

20

25

1918

1925

1932

1939

1946

1953

1960

1967

1974

1981

1988

1995

2002

2009

2016

Annu

al T

rips p

er C

apita

Annu

al R

ider

ship

, Bill

ions

Rides, Billion

U.S. Transit Ridership, Fixed Route, 12-Month Rolling Average

7.0

7.2

7.4

7.6

7.8

8.0

8.2

8.4

8.6

8.8JA

N08

APR

08JU

L08

OC

T08

JAN

09A

PR09

JUL0

9O

CT0

9JA

N10

APR

10JU

L10

OC

T10

JAN

11A

PR11

JUL1

1O

CT1

1JA

N12

APR

12JU

L12

OC

T12

JAN

13A

PR13

JUL1

3O

CT1

3JA

N14

APR

14JU

L14

OC

T14

JAN

15A

PR15

JUL1

5O

CT1

5JA

N16

APR

16JU

L16

OC

T16

JAN

17A

PR17

JUL1

7O

CT1

7

Hun

dred

s of

Mill

ions

Top 40 UZAs by 2016 Transit Ridership, Change 2014-2016 (Millions)

Top 40 urban areas make up 83.9% of

U.S. ridership decline from 2014-2016.

Source: NTD Monthly Raw Database

9.00%

5.10%

2.70%

0.60% 1.20%

5.00%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Mod

e Sh

are,

Usu

al C

omm

ute

Car, truck, or van -- carpooled Public transportation Walked Bicycle Other means Worked at home

Declining Carpooling and Growing Work-at-Home Dominate Trends

Where are We Headed?

2012-2014

2018

?

2015-2017 Transit ridership near 60 year high

Millennials are different

We passed peak VMT

We are urbanizing and CBD’s are thriving

Developers embrace transit

Strong Referendum success

TNC’s address first-mile/last-mile issue

Millennials buy cars and move to suburbs

Transit ridership loss accelerates in 3rd year of decline

VMT and VMT/Capita continue growth

Growth and migration resume historic patterns

System conditions, reliability, health care costs, etc. plague transit operators

How much will that subway cost? When will Hawaii's rail system open? How is that new streetcar doing?

TNC’s can cannibalize transit ridership

Why do we need transit with CAV?

Framework for Understanding Changes in Transit Ridership

1. Demographics and Land-Use

3. Competition

2. Transit Service Quality How much of ridership change is explained by these factors?

Demand

Supply

Framework for Understanding Changes in Transit Ridership

1. Demographics and Land-Use Age Geographic Distribution across Metros Geographic Distribution within Metros (within proximity of service?/gentrification) Income Licensure Levels Auto Ownership Poverty Levels (SNAP enrollment) Unemployment Reduced College Student Ridership (APTA report) Core Values

3.2 3.5

4.0 4.3 4.2 4.0

3.6

2.9

2.0

0

1

2

3

4

5

5-14 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+

Tirp

s per

per

son

per d

ay

Age group

1.0%

2.9% 2.6%

1.8% 2.0%

1.6% 1.5% 1.2% 1.1%

0.0%

0.5%

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

2.5%

3.0%

3.5%

5-14 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+Shar

e of

trip

s tak

en v

ia tr

ansi

t

Age group

0

10

20

30

40

50

5-14 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+

Pers

ons (

Mill

ions

)

2015

2010

2000

1990

1980

Aging Population has a Negative Impact on Ridership

Top 10 Largest-Gaining Counties (Numeric Change): July 1, 2015 to July 1, 2016

Largest-Declining Counties or County Equivalents (Numeric Change): July 1, 2015 to July 1, 2016

County Population Numeric Change

Percent Change

Transit Commute Share 2015

County Population Numeric

Change Percent Change

Transit Commute

Share 2015

Maricopa County, 4,242,997 81,360 1.95 2.3% Cook County, 5,203,499 -21,324 -0.41 18.8%

Arizona Illinois Harris County, 4,589,928 56,587 1.25 2.8% Wayne County, 1,749,366 -7,696 -0.44 2.5% Texas Michigan Clark County, 2,155,664 46,375 2.2 4.2% Baltimore city, 614,664 -6,738 -1.08 19.6% Nevada Maryland

King County, 2,149,970 35,714 1.69 12.6% Cuyahoga County, 1,249,352 -5,673 -0.45 5.1%

Washington Ohio

Tarrant County, 2,016,872 35,462 1.79 0.6% Suffolk County, 1,492,583 -5,320 -0.36 6.8%

Texas New York

Riverside County, 2,387,741 34,849 1.48 1.4% Milwaukee County, 951,448 -4,866 -0.51 6.2%

California Wisconsin

Bexar County, 1,928,680 33,198 1.75 2.6% Allegheny County, 1,225,365 -3,933 -0.32 9.1%

Texas Pennsylvania

Orange County, 1,314,367 29,503 2.3 3.2% San Juan County, 115,079 -3,622 -3.05 0.3%

Florida New Mexico Dallas County, 2,574,984 29,209 1.15 2.9% St. Louis City, 311,404 -3,471 -1.1 9.7% Texas Missouri Hillsborough County, 1,376,238 29,161 2.16 1.7% Jefferson County, 114,006 -3,254 -2.78 0.0%

Florida New York Average 3.4% Average 7.8%

Migration and Growth are Higher in Low Transit Use Areas

Improving Vehicle Availability Coincides with Declining Transit Ridership

-10%

-5%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Percent Change in Transit Ridership and Zero-Vehicle Households from 2005

Ridership Percent Change from 2005 Percent Change Zero-Vehicle Households from 2005

1.3 million fewer persons lived in zero vehicle households in 2016 than in 2014.

Transit Use Correlates with Need-Based Program Participation

0%

30%

60%

90%

120%

150%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

SNAP

Use

rs P

erce

nt C

hang

e fr

om 2

002

Ride

rshi

p Pe

rcen

t Cha

nge

from

200

2

Percent Change U.S. Transit Ridership and SNAP Enrollment

Ridership Percent Change from 2002

SNAP Users Percent Change from 2002

Are Core Values that Impact Travel Changing?

Do we value autonomy, privacy, flexibility, convenience, etc. more than in the past?

Money Cost

Reliability

Travel Behavior

Comfort

Safety

Time Cost

Convenience

Flexibility

Image Environmental, Social Impact

Framework for Understanding Changes in Transit Ridership

2. Transit Service Quality Fares (levels, convenience, ease of use) Level of Service (coverage, frequency, hours of operation) Speed (access, wait, in vehicle, transfer, egress)(tolerance for waiting in our immediate gratification culture) Reliability Safety/Security

• Accident Safety, In-Vehicle/Facility Crime Image

• Cleanliness • Interpersonal Compatibility - Increased homeless/mental ill ridership (APTA report) • Status/Persona

Environmental Impacts Awareness/Marketing (trip planning, real time information, digital fare payment, etc.) Amenities (Wi-Fi, shelter, convenience retail, etc.)

Average Fare Revenue per Passenger Trip and Passenger Mile (2017 Dollars)

$0.00

$0.20

$0.40

$0.60

$0.80

$1.00

$1.20

$1.40

$1.60

$1.80Av

erag

e Fa

re R

even

ue

per Passenger Trip per Passenger Mile

Pre 2014 data from APTA Fact Book, Post 2014 data from NTD

Service Supply

0123456789

10D

EC

02A

PR

03A

UG

03D

EC

03A

PR

04A

UG

04D

EC

04A

PR

05A

UG

05D

EC

05A

PR

06A

UG

06D

EC

06A

PR

07A

UG

07D

EC

07A

PR

08A

UG

08D

EC

08A

PR

09A

UG

09D

EC

09A

PR

10A

UG

10D

EC

10A

PR

11A

UG

11D

EC

11A

PR

12A

UG

12D

EC

12A

PR

13A

UG

13D

EC

13A

PR

14A

UG

14D

EC

14A

PR

15A

UG

15D

EC

15A

PR

16A

UG

16D

EC

16A

PR

17A

UG

17Hun

dred

s of

Mill

ions

(Trip

s an

d V

RM

)

12-Month Rolling Average of U.S. Transit Ridership and Service, Fixed Route

Ridership Service

0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.55.0

DE

C02

MA

Y03

OC

T03

MA

R04

AU

G04

JAN

05JU

N05

NO

V05

AP

R06

SE

P06

FEB

07JU

L07

DE

C07

MA

Y08

OC

T08

MA

R09

AU

G09

JAN

10JU

N10

NO

V10

AP

R11

SE

P11

FEB

12JU

L12

DE

C12

MA

Y13

OC

T13

MA

R14

AU

G14

JAN

15JU

N15

NO

V15

AP

R16

SE

P16

FEB

17JU

L17H

undr

eds

of M

illio

ns (T

rips

and

VR

M)

12-Month Rolling Average of U.S. Transit Ridership and Service, Metro Bus

Ridership Service

05

1015202530354045

DE

C02

MA

Y03

OC

T03

MA

R04

AU

G04

JAN

05JU

N05

NO

V05

AP

R06

SE

P06

FEB

07JU

L07

DE

C07

MA

Y08

OC

T08

MA

R09

AU

G09

JAN

10JU

N10

NO

V10

AP

R11

SE

P11

FEB

12JU

L12

DE

C12

MA

Y13

OC

T13

MA

R14

AU

G14

JAN

15JU

N15

NO

V15

AP

R16

SE

P16

FEB

17JU

L17

Mill

ions

(Trip

s an

d V

RM

) 12-Month Rolling Average of U.S. Transit Ridership and Service,

Commuter Rail

Ridership Service

Service Supply

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5D

EC

02M

AY

03O

CT0

3M

AR

04A

UG

04JA

N05

JUN

05N

OV

05A

PR

06S

EP

06FE

B07

JUL0

7D

EC

07M

AY

08O

CT0

8M

AR

09A

UG

09JA

N10

JUN

10N

OV

10A

PR

11S

EP

11FE

B12

JUL1

2D

EC

12M

AY

13O

CT1

3M

AR

14A

UG

14JA

N15

JUN

15N

OV

15A

PR

16S

EP

16FE

B17

JUL1

7Hun

dred

s of

Mill

ions

(Trip

s an

d V

RM

) 12-Month Rolling Average of U.S. Transit Ridership and Service, Heavy Rail

Ridership Service

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45D

EC

02M

AY

03O

CT0

3M

AR

04A

UG

04JA

N05

JUN

05N

OV

05A

PR

06S

EP

06FE

B07

JUL0

7D

EC

07M

AY

08O

CT0

8M

AR

09A

UG

09JA

N10

JUN

10N

OV

10A

PR

11S

EP

11FE

B12

JUL1

2D

EC

12M

AY

13O

CT1

3M

AR

14A

UG

14JA

N15

JUN

15N

OV

15A

PR

16S

EP

16FE

B17

JUL1

7

Mill

ions

(Trip

s an

d V

RM

) 12-Month Rolling Average of U.S. Transit Ridership and Service, Light Rail

Ridership Service

Framework for Understanding Changes in Transit Ridership

3. Competition Communication Substitution for Travel Trip making levels (telecommuting, e-commerce, distant learning, online

banking etc.) TNC availability/LOS/price Bike/Bikeshare Auto Cost

• Fuel Cost • Purchase/Lease/Finance Cost • Parking Cost/Other Auto Costs

Roadway Congestion/Speed

$0.00

$0.50

$1.00

$1.50

$2.00

$2.50

$3.00

$3.50

$4.00

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

Aver

age

U.S

. Gas

Pric

e

Unl

inke

d Pa

ssen

ger T

rips

(Mill

ions

) U.S. Average Gas Price U.S. Ridership

*Inflation adjustment performed using Bureau of Labor Statistics inflation calculator using CPI, UPT for 2015 and 2016 from Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Gas prices from EIA

Gas Prices and Transit Ridership, 1994-2016

Ridership trends are context specific and vary significantly across geography/property.

The reasons for soft ridership differ across contexts with telecommuting, TNC’s, service reliability, auto ownership trends, fares, and other factors having different impacts in different markets.

Transit has historically had the lowest mode loyalty (mode of last resort in many contexts).

If declining fare revenues and/or dampened public willingness to increase subsidies result from soft ridership, the downward spiral of transit ridership may continue.

Key Issues – Travel Behavior

Strong employment growth and growing real income could continue to undermine transit dependency and jeopardize ridership. Urban civility may influence future ridership trends. Demographic trends in proximity to transit services (TOD) will influence

future ridership. Increasing roadway congestion could favor premium transit services but

undermine mixed traffic transit operations. System condition and quality of industry execution may influence ridership.

Key Issues – Travel Behavior

Is there an inflection point where service becomes more attractive to choice travelers?

Ride

rshi

p

Pr

oduc

tivity

Accessibility Speed

Frequency Convenience, etc.

?

Key Issues – Strategic

Density

The disconnect between the beneficiaries of transit services and the sources of funding for transit may impede the future financial sustainability of transit.

General Public

Funding Sources Beneficiaries

Adjacent Landholders

Riders

Key Issues – Strategic

Key transportation goals 1. Mobility 2. Economic competitiveness 3. Resource efficiency

May be best addressed with multiple • Technologies and services • Mixes of public and private providers • Different pricing and funding strategies

Today’s modal silos will disappear – we won’t worry about the future of

transit or transit ridership but instead worry about mobility.

Key Issues – Strategic

Thank You!