Trends in Urban Transit in the U.S. – Some Comparisons

Edd Hauser, P.E., PhD Nicholas J. Swartz, MPA

Center for Transportation Policy StudiesUNC Charlotte

“The role of a university has always been to provide a forum for the free and open discussion of ideas and precepts.”

- Keyishian vs. Board of Regents, State University of New York, 385 U.S. 589 (1967) – a finding upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court

Presentation Outline

• Highway Funding Trends in the U.S.

• Transit Cost and Ridership Trends

• Comparative Analysis of Transit in Cities with Light Rail Systems

• Data on Charlotte Transit and Highways

Source: Status of the Nation's Highways, Bridges, and Transit: 2004 Conditions and Performance, US Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration

Source: Status of the Nation's Highways, Bridges, and Transit: 2004 Conditions and Performance, US Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration

Transit in the U. S. & Charlotte

– Nationwide today, approx. 65,000 buses (140,000 route miles)

– Charlotte – growth from 143 to 247 buses (from 47 to 76 routes) between 1998 and 2007

– 15,000 rail vehicles(9,800 route miles) – Trip Types:

Work 54%

School 15%

Shopping 9%Source: American Public Transportation Association Website (www.APTA.com)

Operating Expenses & Ridership (1999-2005)

• Nationwide: – 49.3 percent increase in Operating Expenses – 8.9 percent increase in annual pass. miles– 16% increase in vehicle revenue miles

• Charlotte:– 158 % increase in operating expenses – 26% increase in annual passenger miles – 81% increase in vehicle revenue miles

• Highest increases: – Light Rail – Demand Response – Van Pool

Source: 2005 National Transit Summaries and Trends (http://www.ntdprogram.com)

VRM, Bus Transit

Source: 2005 National Transit Summaries and Trends (http://www.ntdprogram.com)

VRM, Light Rail Transit

Source: 2005 National Transit Summaries and Trends (http://www.ntdprogram.com)

Comparative Analysis of Bus Transit in Cities with Light Rail Systems

1. Service Area and # of Bus and Light Rail Vehicles 2. Service Efficiency (Operating Expense Per Vehicle Revenue Mile) 3. Cost Effectiveness (Operating Expense Per Passenger Mile) 4. Proportion of Bus Operating Expenses Collected in Fares

(2007)

Bus Transit Service Area (sq. mi.) (2005)

Service Area Square Miles

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000

Baltimore

Boston

Buffalo

Charlotte

Cleveland

Dallas

Denver

Galveston

Houston

Kenosha

Los Angeles

Memphis

Minneapolis

New Orleans

Newark

North Little Rock

Philadelphia

Pittsburgh

Portland

Sacramento

Salt Lake City

San Diego

San Francisco

San J ose

Seattle

St. Louis

Tampa

Source: Federal Transit Administration, National Transit Database for 2005

Service Efficiency (Operating Expense/Vehicle Revenue Mile)

$0.00

$2.00

$4.00

$6.00

$8.00

$10.00

$12.00

$14.00

$16.00

Source: Federal Transit Administration, National Transit Database for 2005

2005

Cost Effectiveness (Operating Expense Per Passenger Mile)

$0.00

$0.20

$0.40

$0.60

$0.80

$1.00

$1.20

$1.40

$1.60

(2005)

Source: Federal Transit Administration, National Transit Database for 2005

Operating Expense/Annual Unlinked Trips

(2005)

$0.00

$1.00

$2.00

$3.00

$4.00

$5.00

$6.00

$7.00

Source: Federal Transit Administration, National Transit Database for 2005

Analysis of “Reasonableness” of South Corridor LRT Development

1. Capital Cost per mile – selected systems (2007 dollars) 2. Comparative Cost with other Transportation Projects in the Charlotte Area3. Long-range Transportation Cost Projections 4. Private Sector Investments generated

Capital Cost per Mile, LRT - New Start Projects

Cost in 2007 Dollars (Mil.)Charlotte $ 48.2Dallas $ 60Denver $ 32Sacramento $ 13St. Louis $ 56Seattle $179

Sources: www.lightrail.com/projects.htm; www.soundtransit.org/x1171.xml; http://www.charmeck.org/Departments/Charlotte+Future/Why+Rapid+Transit/Home.htm

Cost Estimate Increase over time – Selected Charlotte Area Projects

Pct. Change from Orig. Cost Estm. To Present

LRT South Corridor 109 %

US 29-601 Connector 305 %

I-485, NW Section 292 %

US 29 – NC 49 Connector 327 %

Monroe Bypass 213 %

Sources: CATS and NCDOT TIP

Long-Range Cost Projections to 2030, Mecklenburg County

Current Estm. (2006 dollars) YOE

Estm.

Transit - CATS ½ cent $1.0 B. $ 1.9 B. NCDOT 0.6 B. 0.7 B. Federal 1.6 B. 1.9 B.

Totals 3.2 B. 4.5 B.

Highways - NCDOT $2.6 B. CDOT 0.5 B.

Total $ 3.1 B.

Sources: CATS, NCDOT, CDOT

Building Permits and Property Tax Values in South End

Building Permits ($ M.) Prop. Tax Value ($ M.)

FY 2000 $ 232

FY 2003 $ 281 $ 441

FY 2004 $ 301

FY 2005 $ 322 $515

FY 2006 $ 403

Source: City of Charlotte Budget and Evaluation Office

Why is a modal choice important for the South Corridor?

Source: US Census

Source: US Census

•TRB Report (2000):

-Charlotte experienced an average 26.1 minute work trip (an increase of 4.5 minutes, or 20.9% increase since 1990). -Atlanta: 31.2 minutes

-Raleigh-Durham: 24.9 min.

•TTI (2005): Charlotte was 22nd highest level of congestion in the country and 2nd highest among cities between 500,000-1m people

Source: Produced by the Charlotte-Mecklenburg County Planning Commission, March 2002

                                 

                                                                                                                                                                  

2030 Corridor Plan

Source: CATS

Summary / Observations

• CATS bus operations

• LRT development

• Overall quality of life and economic development in the region

• Long-range vision

Thank You!

Edd Hauser, P.E., Ph.D. Professor and Director,

Center for Transportation Policy Studies

UNC Charlotte9201 University City Blvd. Charlotte, NC 28223(704) 687-5953ehauser@uncc.edu www.transpol.uncc.edu