National Academies Press: OpenBook

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

Chapter: Chapter 6 - Competition and Complementarity Between Transit Modes in the Twin Cities

« Previous: Chapter 5 - Examining the Peaking Phenomenon in Bay Area Rapid Transit Ridership
Page 52
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 6 - Competition and Complementarity Between Transit Modes in the Twin Cities." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Recent Decline in Public Transportation Ridership: Analysis, Causes, and Responses. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26320.
×
Page 52
Page 53
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 6 - Competition and Complementarity Between Transit Modes in the Twin Cities." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Recent Decline in Public Transportation Ridership: Analysis, Causes, and Responses. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26320.
×
Page 53
Page 54
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 6 - Competition and Complementarity Between Transit Modes in the Twin Cities." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Recent Decline in Public Transportation Ridership: Analysis, Causes, and Responses. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26320.
×
Page 54
Page 55
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 6 - Competition and Complementarity Between Transit Modes in the Twin Cities." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Recent Decline in Public Transportation Ridership: Analysis, Causes, and Responses. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26320.
×
Page 55
Page 56
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 6 - Competition and Complementarity Between Transit Modes in the Twin Cities." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Recent Decline in Public Transportation Ridership: Analysis, Causes, and Responses. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26320.
×
Page 56
Page 57
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 6 - Competition and Complementarity Between Transit Modes in the Twin Cities." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Recent Decline in Public Transportation Ridership: Analysis, Causes, and Responses. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26320.
×
Page 57
Page 58
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 6 - Competition and Complementarity Between Transit Modes in the Twin Cities." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Recent Decline in Public Transportation Ridership: Analysis, Causes, and Responses. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26320.
×
Page 58
Page 59
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 6 - Competition and Complementarity Between Transit Modes in the Twin Cities." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Recent Decline in Public Transportation Ridership: Analysis, Causes, and Responses. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26320.
×
Page 59
Page 60
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 6 - Competition and Complementarity Between Transit Modes in the Twin Cities." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Recent Decline in Public Transportation Ridership: Analysis, Causes, and Responses. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26320.
×
Page 60
Page 61
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 6 - Competition and Complementarity Between Transit Modes in the Twin Cities." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Recent Decline in Public Transportation Ridership: Analysis, Causes, and Responses. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26320.
×
Page 61
Page 62
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 6 - Competition and Complementarity Between Transit Modes in the Twin Cities." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Recent Decline in Public Transportation Ridership: Analysis, Causes, and Responses. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26320.
×
Page 62

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.

52 Urban rail systems are in resurgence. Streetcar rail systems were once the predominant transit mode in American cities, until they were dismantled and replaced with bus systems under pressure from the competition of automobiles. Figures 6-1 and 6-2 show UPTs and VRM by mode since the 1920s. Following the financial crash of 1929, rail ridership dropped sharply as transit operators started replacing streetcar systems with buses. Overall, ridership reached its peak during World War II, followed by a decline due to the massive production of automobiles. Rail ridership declined at an even faster rate as streetcar networks faced further cuts (Tennyson, 1989). Starting in the mid-1970s, rail ridership started a slow but steady rise as new heavy rail and light rail systems were built and overall transit service was increasing. Then, following the Great Recession in 2008, transit agencies cut bus service while preserving heavy and light rail service. Finally, rail ridership in the United States surpassed bus ridership in 2017 for the first time since 1947. One of the keys to understanding the recent ridership trends is to examine the relationship between bus and rail. Between 2010 and 2020, the United States added about the same mileage of high-capacity bus modes as rail (Freemark, 2020). However, the new investments in bus lines only constituted 8% of transit expansion capital funds. When operating on dedicated right- of-way, rail modes can provide high-capacity and reliable service, which may attract passengers. As transit agencies rely on rail expansions to provide capacity in cities, several questions must be answered. The first is how much of the ridership on expanded rail lines is from new transit trips. Some of this ridership could presumably be drawn from local bus routes. The second question is whether rail lines can generate more ridership overall than comparable high-capacity bus routes. Finally, do either rail or high-capacity bus modes have the capacity to generate more ridership on connecting routes? These questions are answered in this section by comparing two Metro Transit expansion projects in the Minneapolis/St. Paul area. Metro Transit is the 17th largest bus agency in the United States, serving 55 million UPTs per year (American Public Transportation Association, 2020). Metro Transit is also the 7th largest light rail agency in the United States, serving 25 million trips per year. The transit system has expanded both light rail and arterial rapid transit service. The Green Line is a light rail route that opened in June 2014 connecting the downtowns of Minneapolis and St. Paul on dedicated right-of-way. Line A is an arterial BRT route, which operates on Snelling Avenue and Ford Parkway on mixed right-of-way with many BRT features. The ridership and frequency trends on the Green Line and the A Line are analyzed as follows using hyper-local data at the station and route levels from APCs, automated fare collection systems, and GTFS. These data enable a comparison between the recent deployments of higher capacity services with the local bus services that either were replaced or continue to run in parallel. The objective is to assess how the cumulative ridership changed due to changes in frequency, new amenities, and—in the case of the Green Line—dedicated right-of-way. The impact of the Green C H A P T E R 6 Competition and Complementarity Between Transit Modes in the Twin Cities

Competition and Complementarity Between Transit Modes in the Twin Cities 53   0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 U nl in ke d Pa ss en ge r T rip s ( m ill io ns ) All Modes Rail Bus 1920 1930 1940 1950 19701960 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 Figure 6-1. UPTs (millions) by mode since the 1920s. (Data: APTA.) 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 Ve hi cl e Re ve nu e M ile s ( m ill io ns ) 1920 1930 1940 1950 19701960 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 All Modes Rail Bus Figure 6-2. VRM by mode since the 1920s. (Data: APTA.) and A Lines on connecting bus routes is also assessed. Finally, this analysis allows for a comparison of the light rail and arterial BRT routes. 6.1 Metro Green Line The Metro Green Line is a light rail line operating on fully dedicated right-of-way. Figure 6-3 shows the Green Line design at 5th Street and Hennepin Avenue. Some sections—such as the one presented in the Google Street View—are at-grade, only separated from traffic with a yellow line. Other sections, such as the University of Minnesota campus, are separated from traffic with

54 Recent Decline in Public Transportation Ridership: Analysis, Causes, and Responses curbs and even physical barriers. Light rail vehicles are also able to avoid delays at intersections through TSP. Finally, the off-board fare collection and all-door boarding help minimize dwell time. Since it opened to the public in June 2014, the route was operating service 24 hours per day until May 2019, when the service was replaced by buses between 2 a.m. and 4 a.m. to allow time for cleaning and maintenance (Kerr, 2019). Figure 6-4 shows a map of the Green Line, which runs on University Avenue between the Minneapolis and St. Paul downtowns through the University of Minnesota campus; the East Bank station is located in the heart of the University of Minnesota campus. The Green Line replaces or supplements other routes that were previously running on University Avenue. Fig- ure 6-5 shows a map of the bus routes adjacent to the Green Line. Bus Route 16 used to serve the entire alignment of the current Green Line, from downtown Minneapolis to downtown St. Paul. Source: Google. Figure 6-3. Street View of Green Line at 5th Street and Hennepin Avenue. Source: Metro Transit. Figure 6-4. Map of Green Line.

Competition and Complementarity Between Transit Modes in the Twin Cities 55   The route was cut to only cover the eastern section of the corridor up from Fairview Avenue to downtown St. Paul, where it continues to provide local bus service with more frequent stops than the Green Line. Bus Route 50, which was discontinued, used to operate on the same corridor as the Green Line and was also on a limited stop basis. Other routes overlap with the alignment of the Green Line but only on short segments. Route 63 connects the Westgate and Raymond stations, and Route 67 connects the Westgate and Fairview stations. Finally, Route 94 runs on highway I-94, which is located several blocks south of University Avenue, as shown in Figure 6-5. In order to assess the impact of the Green Line, the research team compared how weekday service frequency and ridership changed on the multiple routes serving the corridor. Figures 6-6 and 6-7 show the average weekday vehicle trips in one direction and average weekday passenger boardings between 2012 and 2018. In both figures, Routes 16 and 50 are represented in light blue and purple, respectively. The Green Line is shown in dark green. Figure 6-6 shows that the new light rail service on University Avenue did not substantially change overall frequency on the corridor. Before the Green Line opened, the daily frequency was 118 vehicle trips per weekday for Route 16 and 73 vehicle trips per weekday for Route 50. Route 50 was discontinued when Metro Transit rolled out the Green Line. The frequency of Route 16 was first cut to 58 vehicle trips per weekday, then gradually cut to 34 vehicle trips per weekday. Frequency on the Green Line was 115 vehicle trips per weekday from its opening until the end of 2017. By then, the overall frequency on the corridor was 22% lower than it had been prior to June 2014. The main difference is that only 23% of the frequency was local service, whereas previously 62% of vehicle trips had local stops. Source: Metro Transit. Figure 6-5. Map of bus routes adjacent to Green Line.

56 Recent Decline in Public Transportation Ridership: Analysis, Causes, and Responses Figure 6-7 shows how ridership started increasing immediately following the Green Line inauguration. In the first schedule period, overall ridership on the corridor increased by 75%. By the end of 2017, ridership had increased by 97%. At the same time, Route 16, which then only served the eastern section of the University Avenue corridor, lost 94% of its ridership. By fall 2014, the Green Line was carrying 98% of the corridor’s ridership. Therefore, Figure 6-6 shows that the light rail opening led to weekday ridership almost doubling, despite a decline in overall ridership on the corridor. In order to evaluate the connection between the Green Line and connecting bus routes, Figure 6-8 shows ridership at each intermediary station (green) and at intersecting routes. The first and the last stops are not shown because they connect with too many local bus routes. Note that rider- ship at individual light rail stations is compared with the entire routes with which they connect. Figure 6-8 shows a downward trend in ridership that was also shown in Section 6.1 across local Figure 6-6. Average directional weekday vehicle trips on Green Line corridor. Figure 6-7. Average weekday passenger boardings on Green Line corridor.

Competition and Complementarity Between Transit Modes in the Twin Cities 57   Figure 6-8. Comparison of station-level Green Line ridership with route-level ridership of connecting lines.

58 Recent Decline in Public Transportation Ridership: Analysis, Causes, and Responses bus routes, regardless of the ridership served by the Green Line at the intersecting station. No apparent trend, either positive or negative, can be directly attributed to the Green Line opening. 6.2 Metro A Line In June 2016, the Metro A Line was the first in a series of BRT and arterial BRT routes rolled out by Metro Transit. The A Line was followed by the C Line, which opened in June 2019. The C Line travels northwest from downtown Minneapolis to Brooklyn Center Transit Center. The D, B, and E lines, which would also fill in gaps in current service, are currently in planning phases or under construction. The route operates on Snelling Ave and Ford Parkway as shown in Figure 6-9. The A Line starts at the Rosedale Transit Center, connects to the Green Line, Source: Metro Transit. Figure 6-9. Map of A Line.

Competition and Complementarity Between Transit Modes in the Twin Cities 59   and ends on the Blue Line at 46th Street Station. The A Line runs parallel to Route 84 through most of its alignment. The A Line provides many features that help maximize the route’s reliability, but it still operates on mixed right-of-way. Figure 6-10 shows a typical bus stop on the A Line, located at Snelling Avenue and North Highland Parkway. Passengers can enter through the rear doors, which are larger than on regular buses, as fares are collected off-board. Stations are located every 0.5 miles. Each station features light, heat, and real-time information displays. Although the route does not have dedicated lanes, TSP at 19 of the 34 intersections extends green signal phases longer and truncates red phases for the passing buses receiving signal priority (Moore, 2016). Through these reliability improvements, the A Line was able to achieve a 20% to 25% increase in in-service speed compared to Route 84 (Metro Transit, 2017). Figures 6-11 and 6-12 show the weekday service frequency in one direction and ridership on the A Line corridor between 2012 and 2018. Route 84 is shown in purple, and the A Line is in grey. Following a service increase in June 2014, Route 84 attained a frequency of 104 vehicle trips per weekday. The A Line opened in June 2016 with 101 trips per day, while the frequency on the parallel Route 84 was reduced to 33 vehicle trips per weekday, 25% of the overall frequency Source: Google. Figure 6-10. Street view of A Line at Snelling Avenue and North Highland Parkway. Figure 6-11. Average directional weekday vehicle trips on A Line corridor.

60 Recent Decline in Public Transportation Ridership: Analysis, Causes, and Responses Figure 6-12. Average weekday passenger boardings on A Line corridor. on the route. By the end of 2017, the combined frequency in the corridor had increased by 36% following the inauguration of the A Line. Unlike the Green Line corridor, where ridership had been flat or declining since the beginning of the decade, ridership on Route 84 had been on an ascending trajectory. By the end of 2017, overall ridership on the corridor had increased by 34%. The corridor, therefore, maintained the same productivity, which is unusual in cases where service overall increases. As discussed in Chapter 4, ridership is generally inelastic to frequency, which means that additional vehicle trips added to a route typically generate a less-than-proportional increase in ridership. By the end of 2017, Route 84 carried 15% of the ridership on the corridor, which is a disproportionately small share compared to the 25% of frequency it provides. Figure 6-13 shows a comparison of station-level A Line ridership with route-level ridership in connecting routes. The A Line ridership at each individual station is far less than the entire ridership on the routes that it connects with. The researchers also did not find a noticeable change in local bus ridership that can be attributed to the opening of the A Line. 6.3 Conclusion This section compared the frequency and ridership on Metro Transit’s Green and A Lines with prior, parallel, or connecting local bus service. Ridership on the Green Line almost doubled despite a 22% reduction in overall frequency. Along the A Line corridor, ridership increased by 34% following the opening of the arterial BRT line, which increased the overall frequency by 36%. Even though Chapter 4 showed that ridership is generally inelastic to frequency, Line A was able to maintain constant productivity on a corridor where overall ridership increased. These results indicate that both projects were capable of generating new ridership beyond the trips that were previously served by local bus routes, despite an overall downward trend in ridership in the Minneapolis/St. Paul region. The A line was able to increase ridership with higher frequencies but with minimal new infrastructure, whereas the light rail line increased ridership simply by introducing a new mode.

Competition and Complementarity Between Transit Modes in the Twin Cities 61   Figure 6-13. Comparison of station-level A Line ridership with route-level ridership of connecting lines.

62 Recent Decline in Public Transportation Ridership: Analysis, Causes, and Responses The analysis reveals the power of light rail to almost double ridership while cutting service. One possible explanation could be the more positive attitudes of passengers toward rail, also known as the “rail factor” (Scherer, 2010). The rail factor, however, has not been shown to influ- ence travel behavior in previous studies beyond the specific service characteristics (Currie, 2005; Ben-Akiva and Morikawa, 2002). In the Minneapolis/St. Paul region, the Green Line opening benefited from extensive marketing efforts from the transit agency and widespread coverage from the press. Furthermore, the dedicated right-of-way and transit signal priority on the Green Line helped improve service reliability compared to the local bus routes it replaced. Therefore, it remains unclear whether the startling increase in ridership on University Avenue was due to the light rail mode or the way it was implemented. On both corridors, local bus services—which were preserved to provide greater stop-density to limit pedestrian access distances—lost a disproportionate share of ridership compared to the changes in frequency. Route 16, which was reduced to only follow the eastern section of the Green Line, and Route 84, which follows most of the A Line, maintained 23% and 25% of the corridors’ frequency, respectively. The two routes, however, only carried 2% and 15% of the ridership. Both examples illustrate that many riders are quite willing to walk further in order to access a “superior” transit service. The analysis presented in this section can inform how transit agencies, including Metro Transit, can grow their ridership by expanding high-capacity transit networks. Whereas the Green Line cost $957 million to build (Metropolitan Council, 2018), the A Line’s total construction cost was only $27 million (Moore, 2016). The high cost of the Green Line can be justified by the 14,900 passenger trips per weekday it generated beyond the existing ridership on the corridor. With increased service frequency, the A Line was also able to generate an additional 1,750 passenger trips per weekday. While light rail can be the most appropriate mode for high- demand corridors—such as University Avenue with the major trip generator of the campus— the A Line demonstrated the potential for BRT and arterial BRT to expand ridership with minimal capital cost. Overall, Metro Transit’s strategy to expand multiple modes at the same time while providing enhanced bus stops, real-time passenger information, and transit-oriented development may be the best path toward increasing transit ridership in the Minneapolis/ St. Paul region. Light rail in Minneapolis almost doubled ridership while cutting service frequency. However, even BRT was able to increase ridership at a much lower capital cost.

Next: Chapter 7 - The Impact of Shared E-scooters on Bus Ridership in Louisville, Kentucky »
Recent Decline in Public Transportation Ridership: Analysis, Causes, and Responses Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

Rethinking mission and service delivery, rethinking fare policy, giving transit priority, careful partnering with shared-use mobility providers, and encouraging transit-oriented density are among the strategies transit agencies can employ to increase ridership and mitigate or stem declines in ridership that started years before the COVID-19 pandemic.

The TRB Transit Cooperative Research Program's TCRP Research Report 231: Recent Decline in Public Transportation Ridership: Analysis, Causes, and Responses provides a deep-dive exploration of the ridership losses already being experienced by transit systems prior to the COVID-19 pandemic and explores strategies that appear to be key as we move to the new normal of a post-pandemic world.

Supplemental to the report are TCRP Web-Only Document 74: Recent Decline in Public Transportation Ridership: Hypotheses, Methodologies, and Detailed City-by-City Results and an overview presentation.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!