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
