Skip to main content

Tag: transit riders

Is your state missing the bus? Evaluating state transit access and ridership

Transit riders representing a range of ethnicities board a bus in the state of Washington

The state you live in plays a major role in the quality of transit near you. Back in February, we took a look at state financial support for transit. This post focuses on the results of those investments.

Transit riders representing a range of ethnicities board a bus in the state of Washington
Flickr photo by Seattle DOT.

We partnered with the National Campaign for Transit Justice and the Labor Network for Sustainability to assess the quality and support of transit systems across all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico.

In our first post of this series, we focused on state transit funding. But the level of funding transit has received doesn’t necessarily line up with how easily residents are able to use transit on a regular basis. To understand that piece of the puzzle, we focused on two metrics: quality of transit access and how often residents choose driving over transit.

Measuring transit access

Public transit becomes a viable option only when people are able to rely on it for quick, convenient travel to their essential destinations. But, as we wrote back in 2021, while about 80 percent of people in the US live within areas classified as “urban” (which includes the suburbs of urban centers), less than 10 percent of Americans live within walking distance of reliable, high quality transit that comes every 15 minutes. And 45 percent of Americans have no access to transit at all.

To get a better understanding of transit access in each state, we took a look at data from the Environmental Protection Agency’s Smart Location Database to get a sense of how well transit was connecting people to their essential destinations. The EPA collects the number of jobs within a 45-minute drive and the number of jobs within a 45-minute transit ride. From that information, we were able to compare the number of jobs accessible by driving and the number of jobs accessible by transit.

But we couldn’t stop here. We found that some states, like New York, have dense, transit-rich cities with more jobs accessible within a 45-minute transit ride than within a 45-minute drive. This didn’t mean transit access was well-distributed across the state.

To better understand transit access for all state residents, we looked at regional parity, meaning the average person’s access to jobs by transit compared to the most transit-rich areas around them. We found that New York and Hawaii, which initially scored near the top for transit access, did not have consistently strong transit networks throughout the state. 

Map of quality of transit access by state according to our research (described in the above paragraphs of this section). Results in the last two paragraphs of this section.
Map is not drawn to scale.

We took the average of these combined factors to determine the quality of transit access in each state, shown on the map above. Oregon and DC had the highest transit access, while 20 states (Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, West Virginia, and Wisconsin) had the lowest access scores.

These scores don’t include Puerto Rico because the EPA’s Smart Location Database doesn’t include data on access to jobs via car or transit for Puerto Rico. The EPA, and the federal government as a whole, should work to capture this information for all U.S. territories in order to provide a stronger picture of the return on federal investments.

Transit ridership (or lack thereof)

Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) is the measure of the total miles driven by all vehicles on a given state’s roadway in a given year. VMT is usually used as a measure of roadway usage, but here, it functions as a proxy measure for transit usage by measuring its inverse: car usage. We assume states with more driving on average also have less transit ridership on average.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, more people drove less often and transit ridership also dipped dramatically. To provide a more a relevant picture of travel habits, we looked at travel data from 2019.

Eight states and territories had less than 8,500 VMT in 2019, and so transit ridership in these states is likely high. They include: Oregon, Illinois, Washington, Alaska, Pennsylvania, Hawaii, Rhode Island, New York, and DC. The areas with the highest VMT (and therefore lowest transit ridership) were Puerto Rico, Wyoming, and Alabama.

Map of vehicle miles traveled by state. Key findings in the paragraph above.
Map is not drawn to scale.

What’s next?

In the final part of this series, we’ll share the combined scores for each state so you can see how your state ranks overall in transit support and availability, including the specific data we used for our analysis. Stay tuned!

King County’s blueprint for better bus speed and reliability

Transit rider at King County Metro bus stop

The Seattle area’s busiest transit agency released their “playbook” for better transit through smart incremental improvements and community partnerships. Focusing on bus speed and reliability, this guidebook is a valuable resource for any transit agency looking to build trust with riders.

Transit rider at King County Metro bus stop
Flickr photo by Joe A. Kunzier Photo, AvgeekJoe Productions

In King County, WA (Seattle and its surroundings), transit demand is booming. The region has made forward-thinking investment and policy decisions that support smart development decisions, allowing them to maintain a high quality of life amid rapid growth. They’ve made a serious commitment to transit—not only through expansion, but through bolstering existing services—and built efficient infrastructure while incentivizing ridership. As a result, King County has grown a strong transit user base, reduced single-occupancy driving downtown, and cultivated stronger and healthier communities. 

So when their busiest transit agency—King County Metro—released their comprehensive Bus Speed and Reliability Guidelines and Strategies in August, they showed the world what they call their “playbook” of operational tools and capital projects that save riders time and communities money. At a time when building public trust in transit is essential, it’s an excellent guide to the infrastructure and services that make transit trustworthy.

King County Metro (or just Metro) was one of America’s ten most-ridden transit agencies in 2019, and the busiest not to operate any rail services. They achieved this high ridership through smart comprehensive planning (and funding!) for services that run to the places where people actually go. They’re the core provider of local buses in King County, with a strong network of frequent routes in dense core neighborhoods, rapid routes that take riders between communities, and freeway express routes that run on dedicated lanes. Together with the regional agency Sound Transit, as well as agencies in neighboring Pierce and Snohomish Counties, Metro is a national leader in smart transportation planning.

What strategies does the report propose?

In the report, Metro details the incremental infrastructure strategies they implemented to gradually improve street-level bus systems. They provide design initiatives that help buses skip past traffic, including changes to street and intersection design, bus stops and routing, traffic flow alterations, and signaling improvements. The advantages and costs of each are outlined in a digestible format, along with guidelines and extensive examples from the region. 

Street design improvements involve physical changes to the street itself, prioritizing buses in areas where cars often get in the way. Metro proposes dedicated bus lanes and short bypass lanes as projects where buses get their own space. Relatedly, changes to road channelization—that is, the flow of traffic, particularly approaching intersections and the size and design of turns—can have a tremendous impact on bus speed.

Metro also took a look at bus stop planning. The location and design of bus stops can inhibit the stopping and boarding process, slowing down the ride. The report explains how lengthening bus stops—to accommodate more than one bus at a stop at the same time—makes boarding quicker and more convenient for riders, as well as how lengthening stops can be integrated with other design strategies like bulb-outs that slow traffic and enhance pedestrian crossings. Thoughtful bus routes are integrated with these stops and avoid unnecessary turns and choke points.

King County metro bus at an intersection with a crosswalk and painted bike lane
Flickr photo by Oran Viriyincy

Changing traffic control through regulations and signaling is another strategy. Turn restrictions can work alone or go hand-in-hand with street design improvements to move buses faster through intersections, and strategically altering or removing parking frees up lane space and makes it easier for buses to access stops along a sidewalk. Metro explains a few ways that reprogramming traffic signals can also help. The timing of green lights on a street can be adjusted to match the pace of a bus as opposed to car traffic. And technology allows Metro buses to directly change signals, so buses don’t need to wait at red lights or behind cars at intersections.

With a roadmap for physical design in place, Metro also plans to bring communities to the table. Metro operates in many cities throughout King County. The roles of Metro and the appropriate jurisdiction are included in the report alongside key tasks for the planning, design and implementation, and performance management steps for both Metro- and jurisdiction-led projects. Metro lays out several principles for a general cooperation process and timeline, making the report an excellent starting point for other agencies to reference in planning their own partnerships.

“It’s important to build trust and a great working relationship with city staff,” says Irin Limargo, capital planning supervisor at King County Metro. “This effort can start with projects that offer a win/win for transit and traffic, then try to move to higher transit priority treatments.”

Why is it important?

King County may be among the first to publish such a report, but other transit agencies looking to increase reliability and ridership should take notice. Although its examples are centered around the Seattle region, its practices are applicable anywhere.

“In our observation, improvements implemented in Downtown Seattle, even if providing just a few seconds of delay-reduction per trip, can rack up thousands of operating hours savings each year due to the large number of trips operating through that area. That said, our suburban and smaller city partners are equally important because transit operates as a system and routes cross city boundaries,” says Limargo. 

The report offers tried-and-true strategies that go hand-in-hand with the core principles of smart transportation policy, safety, and accessibility. Coordination is a persistent theme in this report, and it goes beyond the six jurisdictions that worked together in its publishing. Their incremental approach gives new life to existing infrastructure and makes it more useful and long-lasting than a continued dedication to unsustainable driving patterns. It prioritizes safety by proposing improvements that intentionally slow down or decrease the influence of cars in a given area, and it makes pedestrian and transit infrastructure more publicly visible than it is today. And improving speed and reliability through small improvements can help riders reach more places more consistently. 

Special thanks to Peter Heffernan, government relations administrator at King County, for getting us at T4A in touch with Irin Limargo.

Transit agencies, riders, unions, and members of Congress rally to save transit

Last week, a diverse group of transit stakeholders advocated for at least $32 billion in federal emergency funding for public transportation during a virtual rally. Scores of transit riders, transit agency executives, union leaders and members of Congress made it clear that transit won’t survive this crisis without help.

Transit needs your help. Here’s what you can do.

Public transit is essential and facing a financial crisis. We need to keep the pressure on Congress to pass at least $32 billion in emergency relief for transit.

(1) Email and call your members of Congress. Your Congressional delegation needs to hear from you. Use our action page to send an email to your members of Congress, and then follow-up with a call using this script.

(2) Tweet #SaveTransit today. We’re joining with the Save Public Transit Rally organizers this Tuesday to make #SaveTransit trend. Use our social media toolkit to tweet (and tag your members of Congress) in support of at least $32 billion in emergency relief for transit. 

Senate Republicans’ most recent COVID-19 relief proposal didn’t include any emergency funding for public transportation (at a time when transit is in crisis) and the House Democrats HEROES Act provided less than half of what transit needs. With budgets in freefall, transit agencies across the country are making drastic cuts to service, severing millions of people from access to essential jobs, healthcare and grocery stores—all during a deadly pandemic. These cuts erode the prospect of any long-term economic recovery, with limited and infrequent transit service unable to connect people to opportunities and essential services they need. 

That’s why transit agencies, riders, union leaders, and members of Congress came together last week to explain why transit agencies need at least $32 billion in emergency relief. 

Click through to take action to save transit.

At the Save Public Transit Rally, transit executives and riders from Chicago, Cleveland, New Orleans, New York City, Philadelphia, and San Francisco joined forces with the AFL-CIO Transportation Trades Department, the Transport Workers Union, Senators Chuck Schumer (NY) and Chris Van Hollen (MD), and Representatives Jesús “Chuy” García (IL-4) and Jerry Nadler (NY-10) to resoundingly support at least $32 billion in emergency relief for public transit. The rally, available to watch in full here, was organized by Transportation for America, the Riders Alliance of New York, and Alliance for a Just Society, and co-sponsored by 39 other organizations. 

“Public transit is not an option. Public transit is a lifeline,” said Rep. Jesús “Chuy” García. “The working men and women at all transit agencies across the country roll up their sleeves and go to work everyday.  They enable the rest of our essential frontline workers to get the job done.  Now it’s our turn.” 

What made the rally especially powerful was that transit riders spoke before the leader of their transit agency and explained how critical transit is to their life. 

“I live in New Orleans. Public transit is my bread and butter,” said Judy Stevens, a New Orleans transit rider. “I’m an essential healthcare worker. I don’t own a car. I use transit to get to work, grocery, doctor appointments, all daily activities. I rely and depend on it. With cutbacks to service during COVID, riders aren’t able to social distance right now. Please Congress, listen to riders, and fully fund transit service.” 

There are thousands of essential workers and riders like Judy across the country. By choosing not to act, Congress is stranding Americans who rely on transit each day and hampering any future recovery. But it’s not too late for Congress to pass the assistance that our nation’s transit systems need to keep running through and after the pandemic.

CDC quietly revises their guidance to encourage people to use transit safely

Two weekends ago the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention quietly revised their guidance for using public transportation after an outpouring of criticism from Transportation for America, NACTO, TransitCenter, the American Public Transportation Association, and others that the CDC was contradicting years of their own guidance that encouraging more driving incurs massive public health costs in pollution, respiratory illnesses, obesity, and preventable traffic deaths.

We will eventually get more of the country back to work as the pandemic subsides (in some places, even as it likely springs back in others.) Some parts of the country are already reopening in phases. But when we do start things up again, we will need public transportation to continue moving millions of people. And as we have throughout the pandemic, the country will look to the CDC for advice.

Yet, when the CDC first issued their guidance for public transit their lone, astonishing recommendation for employers of people who commute using public transportation was to offer those employees incentives encouraging them to drive and park, and allow flexible hours to commute when it’s less busy. Needless to say, we were aghast. As Beth Osborne, T4America director, told E&E last week in a story about the updated guidance, “I find responding to this guidance so frustrating and befuddling, I don’t know where to start.”

As former NYC DOT head Janette Sadik-Khan chimed in along those same lines, “The CDC telling workers to drive alone assumes that everyone owns a car and that cities can handle the traffic. This is a fever dream.  There’s no reopening cities w/o reopening transit. Ruling it out doesn’t make it safer.”

Scores of public letters were written to CDC. And then rather quietly two weekends ago, the CDC made some notable and encouraging changes to that guidance.

What changed?

They have added “if feasible” to that first part, as well as expanding upon the kinds of transportation that help avoid close contact like biking, walking, or riding with other household members. But much more importantly, rather than just urging transit riders to start driving—which is not possible for millions of Americans, would destroy our cities, and (by CDC’s own admission) would make air pollution worse and traffic fatalities increase—they direct employees to read other valuable guidance CDC has produced on protecting yourself on transportation. That guidance could also use some improvements but it’s at least they are pointing to practical advice for helping riders use transit and stay safe doing so as the country reopens.

CDC still needs to go further on transportation, such as encouraging drivers to clean their cars to make carpooling safe, providing more (new, quick, flexible) facilities for bike parking, petitioning cities to create new safe space for biking/walking, but this was an important recognition by CDC of the ways that their previous guidance actually contradicted their own incredibly valuable, decades-long work to help address health by encouraging more walking, more biking, and more transit use in metro areas across the country.

As TransitCenter has been documenting, other affected countries (Japan, South Korea, and even France.) have restored all or part of their transit service and have seen passenger counts return to pre-pandemic levels, all without an outbreak. It’s clearly possible to bring transit back safely, and CDC should be the ones helping to make this possible.

Our cities won’t function without it.

As the struggle in New York is already demonstrating—the mayor with social distancing vs. the MTA with universal mask-wearing—even with better guidance from the CDC (which they should still improve), it can still be a battle because of jurisdictional issues endemic to transit, which is rarely controlled by one city or locality. These changes are a good step but the CDC should be leading the charge with good recommendations that also weigh the relative short- and long-term risks of safely reopening transit systems and encouraging riders to return vs. millions more cars on the road.