USF Libraries
USF Digital Collections

Public transit in America

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Public transit in America findings from the 1995 nationwide personal transportation survey
Alternate title:
Findings from the 1995 nationwide personal transportation survey
1995 nationwide personal transportation survey
Physical Description:
1 online resource (various pagings) : ill. ;
Language:
English
Creator:
Polzin, Steven Edward
Rey, Joel R
Chu, Xuehao
University of South Florida -- Center for Urban Transportation Research
United States -- Dept. of Transportation. -- University Research Program
Publisher:
Center for Urban Transportation Research, University of South Florida
Available to the public through the National Technical Information Service
Place of Publication:
Tampa
Springfield, VA
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
1995 NPTS nationwide personal transportation survey   ( lcsh )
Urban transportation -- Research -- United States   ( lcsh )
Urban transportation -- Statistics -- United States   ( lcsh )
Genre:
bibliography   ( marcgt )
statistics   ( marcgt )
technical report   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )

Notes

Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references.
Funding:
Supported by a grant from the U.S. Department of Transportation, University Research Institute Program.
General Note:
"Author(s): Steven E. Polzin, Joel R. Rey, and Xuehao Chu"--Technical rept. documentation p.
General Note:
"September 1998."

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of South Florida Library
Holding Location:
University of South Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
aleph - 029117581
oclc - 750498674
usfldc doi - C01-00162
usfldc handle - c1.162
System ID:
SFS0032270:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader nam 2200433Ia 4500
controlfield tag 001 029117581
005 20110908132619.0
006 m o d
007 cr bn|||||||||
008 110908s1998 flua obst 000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a C01-00162
035
(OCoLC)750498674
040
FHM
c FHM
043
n-us---
090
HE308 (ONLINE)
1 100
Polzin, Steven Edward.
0 245
Public transit in America
h [electronic resource] :
b findings from the 1995 nationwide personal transportation survey.
3 246
Findings from the 1995 nationwide personal transportation survey
1995 nationwide personal transportation survey
260
Tampa :
Center for Urban Transportation Research, University of South Florida ;
Springfield, VA :
Available to the public through the National Technical Information Service,
[1998]
300
1 online resource (various pagings) :
ill.
500
"Author(s): Steven E. Polzin, Joel R. Rey, and Xuehao Chu"--Technical rept. documentation p.
5 FTS
"September 1998."
FTS
504
Includes bibliographical references.
536
Supported by a grant from the U.S. Department of Transportation, University Research Institute Program.
DTRS93-G-0019.
588
Description based on print version.
630
1995 NPTS nationwide personal transportation survey.
650
Urban transportation
x Research
z United States.
Urban transportation
United States
v Statistics.
700
Rey, Joel R.
Chu, Xuehao.
2 710
University of South Florida.
Center for Urban Transportation Research.
United States.
Dept. of Transportation.
University Research Program.
776
i Print version:
Polzin, Steven Edward.
t Public transit in America.
d Tampa : Center for Urban Transportation Research, University of South Florida ; Springfield, VA : Available to the public through the National Technical Information Service, [1998]
w (OCoLC)42581610
773
Center for Urban Transportation Research Publications [USF].
4 856
u http://digital.lib.usf.edu/?c1.162
FTS
y USF ONLINE ACCESS
951
10
SFU01:001963232;
FTS



PAGE 1

Public Transit in America: Findings from the 1995 Nationwide Personal Transportation Survey September 1998 Center for Urban Transportation Resear ch University of South Florida 4202 East Fowler Avenue, CUT 100 Tampa, FL 33620

PAGE 2

RCIINlCAL.REPOJtTSf A.NDA.R.OTin.tPA(;t o. ..,_ .... NUTI4USF-4 1 A""""ioo.l\0. ). No 4 s litCf>Oit l)m PUBLIC TRANSIT IN AMERICA: FINDINGS FROM THE 1995 NATIONWIDE September 1998 PERSONAL TRANSPORTATION SURVE Y 6 htf'MI'Iii'IS OftUiiull c c;c 1. Al.ubo. '(s} a Ot&anW!loo Report Steven E. Polzin, Joel R. Rey, and Xuehao Chu 9 Petf'wwi/13 0f$1uttoc. an: 1\Q!fen 10 WM\ilii No. National Urban Transit lnstirute Cente r for Urban Transportation Resear<:h, University of South Florida u DTRS93G 0019 4202 East Fowler Avenue, CUT 100, Tampa, Florida 33620-5350 I $;ort bas been prepared as an information base for people involved in planning, operating, marketing, and decision-making for public transit i n America. It characterizes public transit as it is today from a n umber of perspectives that are believed to be usefu l to their professional activities. The scale of analysis is limited to the 1995 NPTS which includes a number of enhancements to the survey content and method and the resulting data base over pr e vious surveys. The most notable enhancements include the addition of questions on public attitudes about transportation, the change from recollection to travel diary for trip recording and the addition o f characteristics for both residential and employment si tes. The scale of analysis i s also limited to describing various aspects of transit markets, rather than explaining the causality of various relationships obse -rved. T he scope of analysis is limited t o eight perspectives o f characterizing public transit, including: I) Public attitudes about public transit; 2) Perceived availability and proximity of public transi t ; 3) E xtent of transferring; 4) Perceived characteristics of public transit trips (d i stance travel time, speed and waiting time) ; 5) Public transit's market shares; 6) Public transit's sub-markets; 7) Propensity for transit use by people who perceive publi c transit to be available to them; and 8) Public transit's marl. Seo.:rity (o! 2 0 Sc=ily C ltlr, (oflhio ,_.) 21. 2:. J'ri(e Unclassified Unclassified 178 Form DOTF 1700.7 (U9)

PAGE 3

ACKNOWLEDGMENT This project is made possibl e though a grant from the U.S. Department of Transportation, University Research Institute Program. The following persons provided comments and suggestions on earlier versions of this report : Michael Baltes Center for Urban Transportation Research (CUTR) William G. Barker, VIA Metropolitan Transit Francis Cleland, CUTR Susan Liss, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Elaine Murakami, FHWA Darwi n Stuart, Chicago Transit Authority

PAGE 4

CONTENTS CHAPTER 1 Int r oduction . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 CHAPT ER 2 l>ata Sou r ces Intro duction . . . 1995 NPTS . . ... Comparability with Earlier NPTS Surveys I ssues . . . . . . . Intr oduction . . . . Definition o f p ublic transit Nature ofNPTS trips . C omparability w i th FTA and APTA dat a House holds without telepho n e services Limitation of sample estimates . . Number of cases on transit rela t ed questions Terms . . . . . . P e rsonal characteristics Household characteristics Land use characteri stics Geography ... CHAPTER 3 Tre nds . . . . . . I ntroduction . . . . . . . Changes in Population and Vehicles .... Growth of population and vehicles .. Stabi liza tion of vehicle owners hip rates Decline of zero-vehicle households Changes in Travel . . . . Grov.'lb of overall travel . . Decline of transit market share -. . . . Changes in T rip Characteristics . . . . CHAPTER 4 Results . . .. . . . . Introduction . . . . . Public Attitudes about Transit . . . . . Introduction . . .. Highway performance . T ransit in gen eral . . Reasons for using transit . Reasons for not using transi t Problem areas in using transit Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1 2 2 1 2-2 2 4 2 -4 2 5 2-5 2-6 2-7 2-8 2-9 2-1 4 2-14 2-1 4 2-15 2-15 3-1 3-1 3-1 31 3-2 3-3 3-4 3-7 4 1 4-1 41 4 I 4-1 4-1 42 4-3 4 3 4-4

PAGE 5

Availability and Proximity ........ Introduction . . . . . . . Na tionwide avail ability and proximity Effects o f MSA scale and area d ensity Effects of personal, household, and land use characteristics Summary . Transferring . . ... Introduction . . . Transferring nationwide Effects of MSA scal e and area density . . Effects of personal, household, and land use characteristics Summary . . .. Trip Characteristics . . .. Introduction . . . .. National dis tribution s . . Effects ofMSA scale and area density .... Effects of personal, househol d and land use characteristics Summary . Market Shares . . . Introduction . .... Effects of dependency Effects of MSA sca l e and area density Summary .. Sub-Markets . . . . . . . . . . . Introduction .. .. .. .. .. .. .. Sub-markets by population groups ... Sub-markets by geographical areas ... Sub-markets by mode . . Summazy . . . . . ... Propensity for Transit Use . . . . Introduction . . . . . . ... Effects of dependency . . . . Effects ofMSA scale and area density . ...... Summary.. .. .. .. .. ........ Mar ket Penetration . . . . . . . Introduction .. .. ........... .. Penetration rate Conversion factors Summary. Summary ........ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 5 Implications . . . Introduction .. .. .. .. .. Transit Use Varies Dramatically across Contexts Strong l y Dependent on Captive Travel ers . . . Density and Scale are Important Determinants of Transit Use T ransferring . . . . . Customer Satisfaction . . Acce ss to Transit ... . . ii 4 6 4-6 4 6 4 6 4-6 410 4 1 0 4-10 4 1 0 4-10 4-11 4-11 41 4 4 -14 4-14 41 7 4-17 41 8 4-2 1 4-21 4 2 1 4 -21 4-24 4 -24 4-2 4 4-24 4-25 4-2 5 4 -25 4-28 4-28 4-28 4 -29 4-29 4 3 1 4-31 4 32 4-32 4-32 4-33 5 1 5-1 5 1 5-1 5 2 5-2 5-3 5-3

PAGE 6

Transit Use Penetration . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . REFERENCES . . . . . . . . 9 . .... Ill S 3 5-4 .. R 1 APPENDIX A Marke t Sbares ... .... . Al APPENDIXB S ub-Markets . . . . B 1 APP ENDIXC Propensity for T ransit Use . . . . C-1

PAGE 7

iv List of Tables T oble 2-1. Response Rates for the 1995 NPTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-2 Table 2-2. Sample Size of 1995 NPTS Files Used . . . . . . . . . ... 2 2 Table 2-3. Additions to the 1995 NPTS Content and Data Base . ... Table 2-4 Changes in the 1995 NPTS Survey Methodology . . . . . . . . Table 2 5. Samp l e Public Transit Trips by Trip Segmentation . . . . ... Table 2-6. Estimated Number of Linked and Unlinked Public Transit Trips from the 1995 NPTS Tab l e 2-7. Comparison of Unlinked Trips among 1995 NPTS, FTA, and APTA Estimates ... . 2 3 2-4 2 6 2 6 2 6 Tab l e 2-8. Number of Public Transit Agencies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-7 Table 2-9. Comparison of Distributions of 1995 Household Income between 1995 NPTS and Census . 2-8 Table 2 -10. Number of Cases Related to Problems Public Transit Users Experience . . . . . . 2-9 Table 2-11. Number of Cases for Reasons Not Using Public Transit as Usual Mode of Travel to Work. 2-10 Table 2 -12. Number of Cases Related to Reasons for Using Public Transit . . . . . . . 2-10 Table 2 -13. Number of Cases Related to Availability of Public Transit Service . . . . . . 2-11 Table 2 -14. Number of Cases Related t o Proximity of Public Transit Service . . . . 2 -11 Table 2-15. Number of Cases Related to Waiting Time for Public Tra nsit . . . . . 2-12 Table 2 -16. Number of Cases Related to Frequency of Public Transi t Use . . . . . 2-12 Tabl e 2-17 Number of Cases Related to Usual Modes to Work . . . . . 2-13 Table 2-18. Numbe r of Cases Related to Main Means of Transportation to Work . . 2-13 Table 2 -19. Number of Cases Related to Main Means of Transportation for Travel Day Trips Table 2 20. Number of Cases Related to Mode o f Transportatio n for Segmented Trips . Table 2-21. Defm ition o f Urban Classification . . . ..... Tabl e 3-1. I ndex of Changes in Population and Vehicles . . . . . ..... Table 3-2 Changes in Vehic l e Ownership Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 3 3. Changes in Number of Households by Vehi cle Availability . . ........ . Table 3 -4. Index of Changes in Travel (1969=100) ... ............. T able 3 S Index of Changes in Shares of Transit Trips, Non-drivers and 0-vehicle Households ( 1969= I 00) . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 3 -6. Index of Changes in Numbers ofTransit Trips, Non-drivers, and 0-vehicle Households (1969=100) . . . . . . . ... Table 3-7. Changes in Commuting Characteristics. . . ... Table 4-1. Table 4 -2. Table 4-3. Table 4 -4. Table 4 Overall Rating of Local Bus and Rail Services . ... . . ... I Use Public Transit Because ... . . . . . . . . . I Do Not Use Public Transit to Travel to Work Because.... . . . . . .. Perception of Problem Areas in Using Public Transit for All Purposes . Differences in Percent Indicating Each Area as a B i g Problem by Gender, Frequency of Use, and Captivity . . . . . . . . . . . .... Table 4-6. Percent Population Perceiving Public Transit to be Available by MSA Scale and Area Density . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 4-7. Percent Population Living within Quarter Mile of Transit Stop by MSA Scale 2-13 21 4 2-16 3 1 3-2 3 3 3 4 3-5 3-5 . 3-7 . 4-2 4-3 4-3 4 5 . 4-5 4-7 and Area Density . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-8 Table 4-8. Availability and Proximity by Persona l Household, and Land Use Characteristics .... .. 4-9 Table 4 -9. Nationwide Distribution of Linked Transit Trips by Transfers . . . . . . . . 4-10 Table 4 -10. D i stribution ofLinked Transit Trips by Number of Transfers and MSA Scale . 4-11 Table 4-11. Distribution of L inked Transit Trips by Number of Transfers and Area Density 4-11 Table 4-12. Extent ofTransferring by Personal, Household, and Land Use Characteristics 4-13 Table 4-13. Average Public Transit Trip Characteristics Nationwide by Transi t Mode . 4-15

PAGE 8

Table 4-14. Charac teristics of Linked Transit Trips by Personal, Household, and Land Use Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 4-1 S Summary of Public Transit Market Share (Percent) . . . . . ... Table 4-16 Influence ofMSA Scale and Area Density on Transit Market Share . .... Table 4-17. Summary of Public T ran si t Sub-Markets (Percent) . . . . . . . . . Tabl e 4-18. Public Transit Sub-Markets by MSA Scale and Area Density . . . . . . Table 4-19. Percent Transit Trips on Bus by Personal Household and Geographic Characteristics Table 4-20. Summary of Propensity for Transit Use ............... ...... Table 4 -21. Influence ofMSA Scale and Area D ensity on Prop ensity for Transit Use ....... Tabl e 4 22. Penetration Rate and Conversion Factors for a Two Month Period by MSA Scale . v Table 4-23. Penetration Rate and Conversion Factors for a Two Month Period by Area Density .. Table A -1. Public Transit Market Share by MSA Population and Urb anization . . . . . . 4-20 4-22 4 -2 3 4-26 4-26 4-2 7 430 4-30 4 32 4 33 A-2 A 3 A 4 A A-6 A-7 A-8 A-9 Table A-2. Publi c T rans i t Market Share by MSA Population and Person Age .......... . Table A 3. Public Transit Market Share by U rbanization and Person Age ....... ..... Table A-4 Public Transit Market Share by MSA Population and License Status . . . Tab l e A-5. Public Transi t Market Share by Urbanization and License Status ........... Table A-6. Public Transit Market Share by MSA Population and Gender ... Ta ble A-7. Public Transit Market Share by Urbanization and Gender ........ Table A 8 Pub lic Transit Market Share by MSA Population and Working Status . Table A -9. Public Transit Market Share by Urbanization and Working Status . . Table A-10. Public Transit Market Share by MSA Population and Race. . . . . .. Table A-11. Public Transit Market Share b y Urbanization and Race . . . . Table A-12. Publi c Transit Market Share by MSA Popula tion and Ethnicity ......... Table A-1 3. Public Transit Market Share by Urbanization and Ethnicity ........ ... Table A -14. Public Transit Market Share by MSA Population and Household Income . . Table A -IS. Public Transit Market Share by Urbanization and Household Income ...... Table A-16. Public Transit Market Share by MSA Population and Vehicle Ownership . . . Table A 1 7. Public Transit Market Share by Urbanization and Vehicle Ownership ....... . Table A -18. Public Transit Market Share by MSA Population and Home Ownership ....... Table A-19. Public Transit Market Sbare by Urbanization and Home Ownership . . ... Table A 20. Public Transit Market Share by MSA Population and Life Cycle . . . Table A-21. Public Tran sit Market Share by Urbani;:ation and Life Cycle . . . . . Table A -22. Public T r ansit Market Share by MSA Population and Housing Density Tabl e A-23. Public Transi t Market Share by Urbanization and Housing Density . . . Table A-24 Public Transit M arket Share by MSA Population and Population Density .... Table A-25. Public Transit Marke t Share by Urbanization and Population Density . . . Table A-26. Public Transit Marke t Share by MSA Population and Employment Density .. Table A-27. Public Transit Market Share by U rbanization and Employment Density .... Tab le A-28 Public T ransit Market Share by MSA Population and Proximity to Transit Stops Table A-29 Public Transit Market Share by Urbaniza t i on and Proximity to Transit Stops .. Table A 30. Public Transit Market Share by MSA Population and Frequency ofUse ..... Table A -31. Public Transit Mar ke t Share by Urbani;:ation and Frequency of Use ... .... Table B-1. Public Transit Sub-Markets by MSA Population and Urbanization ......... Table B-2 Public Transit Sub Markets by MSA Population and Person Age . . ..... Tabl e B-3. Public Transit Sub-Markets by Urbanization and Person Age ......... Table B-4. Publi c Transit Sub-Markets by MSA Population and License Status ...... Table B-5 Public Transit Sub-Markets by Urbanization and License Status ...... . Table B-6. Public Transit Sub-Markets by MSA Population and Gender . . . Table B-7. Public Transit Sub-Markets by Urbanization and Gender . . . . . . . A-10 A-ll A -12 A-13 A-14 A-IS .. A-16 . A -17 . A-18 . A-19 . A-20 .. A-21 A-22 A -23 A -24 A-2S .. A -26 . A-2 7 .. A -28 A-29 A-30 A-31 A-32 .. B-2 ... B-3 .. B 4 B-S B-6 B 7 B-8

PAGE 9

vi Table B-8 Public Transit Sub-Markets by MSA Population and Worl
PAGE 10

Table C-26. Propensity for Transit Use by MSA Population and Employment Density . Table C-27. Propens i ty for T ransit Use by Urbanization and Emp loyment Density ..... Table C-28. Propensity for Transit Use by MSA Population and Proximity to Transit Stops Tab l e C-29 Propensity for Transi t Use by Urbanization and Proximity to Transit Stops Table C 30. Propensity for Transit Use by MSA Population and Frequency of Use Tab le C-31. Propensity for T ransit Use by Urbani.zation and Frequency of Use ..... \'II C -27 C-28 C-29 C-30 C -31 C-32

PAGE 11

viii List of Figures Figure 3-1. I n dex of C h anges in Pop u l a t i o n an d Vehi c l es . . . . . . . . . . 32 Fig ur e 3-2. In d ex of Chan ges in Vehicle Owne r sh i p Rate s . . . . . . . . .... 3 3 F i g ure 3 -3. Ch anges in th e Number o f Hou se h olds by Vehicl e Avai lability . . . . 34 F i g u re 3-4 I n dex of C h anges in O verall Travel . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Figu r e 3-5. Index of Changes in Shares of T ransi t Tri p s, Non-drivers and 0vehic l e Households ..... 36 Figure 3-6. In d ex of Changes in Transit Trips, No n -driver s, and 0-vehicle H ous e holds ......... 3 7 Figure 3-7 lnde:x of Changes i n Numbers ofT ransit Trips, Non-d r ivers, and 0-vebicle Households ... 3 7 Figure 4-1. Attitudes about Highway Delays by Usual Mode of Transportation . . . . . .... 4 2 Figure 4-2. Overall Rating of Local Bus and Rail Services . . . . . . . . . . . 4-2 Figure 4-3. P erce ived Availability by MSA Scale and Area Density . . . . . . . . . 4 7 Fig u re 4 -4 Perc eive d Proximity by MSA Scale and Area Densi ty . . . . . . . . 4 8 Figur e 4-5. Nation al Di strib u tion of L i nked Transit T rip Distance i n Miles . . . . . . 4-15 Fig ure 4 6 N ationa l Di stribution o f T ravel Time f o r Link ed Tra nsit Tri p s . . . . . 4-16 Fig u r e 4 7 Nationa l Dis trib utio n o f Wa i ting Time for Linked Tra n sit Tr i ps . . . . 4 1 6 Fig ur e 4 8 Natio n al Dis tri bution ofTrip Speed for L inked T r ansit T rip s . . . . . 4 1 7 Figure 4 Chara cteristics of Linked T r a nsit T rip s b y M SA Seale . . . . . . . 4 1 9 Figure 4 -10. Char acteristics of Linked Transit Tri ps by Area Density . . . . . . ... 4-19 Figure 4-11. Influence ofMSA Scale and Area Density on Transit Market Sbare . ... 4 23 Figure 4-12. Influence ofMSA Scale and Area Density on P ropensity for Transit Use .... 4-31 Figure A-1. P ublic Transit Market Share by MSA Population and Urbanization. . . A 2 Figure A -2. P u b lic T ransit Market Share by MSA P opulation and Perwn Ag e . . . A-3 Figur e A -3 Public T r a nsit Mar k et Shar e b y U rban ization and Person Ag e . . . . . A-4 Figu r e A 4 Pub l ic T ran si t M ar k et S h ar e by MSA P o p u l ation and Lice nse Status . . . A-5 Fig ure A 5. Public T ran sit M ar k e t S hare by Urban i zation and Lice nse Sta tus . . . . A-6 Fig u r e A-6. Publi c T r ansit Mark e t S hare by MSA P o pulation an d G ender . . . . A 7 Figur e A-7. Publi c Transit Mark et S h a r e by U rbani zat ion and Gender . . . . . A-8 Figur e A 8 Publ ic T ran sit Mar k et Share by MSA P o p ulation and Worki ng Statu s . . A-9 Figure A-9. Publi c Transit Market Share by U r banization and Working Status . ...... A-10 Figure A-10. Pu blic Transit Market Share by M SA Popula t ion and Race . . . . ...... A -ll Figure A 1 I. Public Transit Market Share by Urbanization and Race . . . . . .... A -12 Figure A -12. Public Transit Market Share by MSA P opulation and Ethnieity . . . . . ... A-13 Figure A-13. Pub lic Transit M arket Sh are by Urbanization and Ethn i city . . . . . . .. A -14 Figure A-1 4 Publi c Transit Market S har e by MSA Popula t ion a n d Ho u s e h old Income . . A-15 Figu r e A IS. Public Tran si t M arke t S hare by Urba n iza tion an d Househo l d In c o m e . . . .. A 1 6 F i g ur e A-16 Pu blic Tran sit Market S h are b y MSA Popu l a t i o n a nd Vehicle Ownership . . . A-17 Figu re A-17. Publi c Tra n si t Mark e t S hare b y U rbanizati o n a n d Vehi c l e Ownersh i p . . . . A-18 Figure A 1 8 Publi c T r ansit Mark et S har e by M S A P opulation and Ho me Owners hip . ...... A-19 Figure A -19. P ublic Transit M arket Share b y Urbanization and Home Own ersh i p ........ ... A 2 0 Figure A-20. P u b lic Transit Mar k et Share b y MSA Population and Life Cycle ............. A -21 Figure A-21. Public Transit Mar k e t Share b y Urbaniution and Life Cycle ............... A -22 Figure A-22. P ublic Transit Market Share by M SA Population and Housing Density . . . A-23 Figure A-23. Pu blic Transit Market Share by Urbanization and Housi n g D ens ity . . .. A 24 Figure A 2 4 Pub lic Transit Mar k e t Sh ar e b y M S A Pop u lation and Pop ul ati o n Den sity . . A -25 Figure A -25. Pub lic Transit M ar k et Shar e by U rbanizat io n and Popul ation Density . . ... A 26 F i g ure A-26. P u b li c T ran sit M arke t Share by M SA Popul at i o n an d Empl o yment Density . ... A -2 7 F i g ure A-2 7. Pub lic Tran s i t Mark et Share by Urbanizati o n and Empl oymen t D ens ity . . . A 2 8 Fig ure A 28. P u blic T ran sit Marke t S hare by MSA P opulation an d P roximity t o Transi t Stops . . A-29

PAGE 12

Figure A-29. Public Transit Market Share by Urbanization and Proximity to Transit Stops Figure A 30. Public T ransit Market Share by MSA Population and Frequency of Use Figure A 3 1 Public Transit Market Share by Urbanization and Frequency of Use Figure B-1. Public Transit Sub-Markets by MSA Population and Urbanization Figure B-2. Public Transit Sub-Markets by MSA Population and Person Age .. Figure B-3. Public Transi t Sub-Markets by Urbanization and Person Age .... Figure B-4. Public Transi t Sub Markets by MSA Population and License Status Figure B-5. Public Transit Sub-Markets by U rbanization and License Status . . Figure B-6. Pub lic Transi t Sub-Markets by MSA Population and Gender ... . . . Figure B 7 Public Transit Sub-Markets by Ur banization and Gender ... . Figure B-8. Public Transit Sub-Markets by MSA Population and Working Status Figu re B 9 Public Transi t Sub-Markets by Urbanization and Working Status Figure B I 0 Public Transit Sub-Markets by MSA Population and Race . Figure B-11. Public Transit Sub-Markets by Urbanization and Race . . Figure B 12. Public Transit Sub-Markets by MSA Population and Ethnicity . . Figure B -13. Public Transit Sub-Markets by Urbanization and Ethnicity .. F igure B-14. Public T ransit Sub-M arkets by MSA Population and Househo l d Income Figure B -15. Public T ransit Sub-Markets by U rbanization and Household Income . Figure B 16. Public T ransit Sub-Markets by MSA Population and Vehicle Ownership Figure B-17. Public Transit Sub-Markets by U rbanization and V ehicle Ownersh i p .. Figure BI 8. Public Transit Sub Markets by MSA Population and Home Ownership Figure B -19. Public Transit Sub -Mar kets by Urbanization and Home Ownership Figure .B-20. Public Transit Sub-Markets by MSA Population and Life Cycle . . Figure .B-21. Public Transit Sub-Ma rkets b y Urbanization and Life Cycle . . . Figure B-22 Public Transit Sub-Markets by MSA Population and Housing Density Figure B 23 Public Transit Sub -Markets by Urbanization and Housing Density .. . Figure B 24. Public Transit Sub-M arkets by MSA Population and Population Density Figure B-25 Public Transit Sub-Markets by Urbanization and Population Density .... Figure B-26 Public Transit Sub-Markets by MSA Population and Employment Dens ity Figure B-27 Public Transit Sub-Markets by Urbanization and Employment Density .. Figure B-28 Public Transit Sub-Markets by MSA Population and Proximity to Transit Stops F igure B 29. Public Transit Sub-Markets by U r banization and Proximity to Transit Stops Figure B-30. Public Transit Sub-Markets by MSA Population and Frequency of Use Figure B-31. Public Transit Sub-Markets by Urbanization and Frequency of Use Figure C-1. Propensity for Transit Use by MSA Population and Urbanization Figure C-2. Propensity for Transit Use by MSA Population and Person Age . Figure C 3. Propensity for Trans i t U se by Urbanization and Person Age .... Figure C-4. Propensity for Transit Use by MSA Population and License Status Figure C-5. Propensity for Transit Use by Urbanization and License Status Figure C-6. Propensity for Transit Use by MSA Population and Gender . . Figure c 7. Propensity for Transit Use by Urbanization and Gender ..... Figur e C -8. Propensity for Transit Use by MSA Population and Working Status Figure C-9. Propensity for Transit Use by Urbanization and Working Status. Figure C-1 0. Propensity for Transit Use by MSA Population and Race . Figure C-1 1 Propensity for Transit Use by U rbanization and Race . . Figure C I 2 Propensity for Trans i t Use by MSA Popul a tion and Ethnicity Figure C-13. Propensity for Transit Use by Urbanization and Ethnicity . Figure C14. Propensity f or Transit Use by MSA Popul ation and Household Income Figure C-15. Propensity for Transit Use by Urbanization and Household Income . . . IX A 30 A -31 A 32 B-2 B 3 B B S B-6 B 7 B-8 B-9 B-10 B-11 B-12 B-13 B -14 B-15 B -16 B 1 7 B 1 8 B1 9 B 20 B-21 B-22 B-23 B-24 B -25 .B-26 B 2 7 B-28 B-29 B-30 B -31 B 32 C 2 C-3 C-4 C-5 C-6 C 7 C 8 C-9 C-10 C-11 C-12 C-13 C-14 C-15 C 1 6

PAGE 13

X Figure C-16. Propensity for Trans it Use by MSA Population and Vehicle Ownership. C-17 Figure C-17. Propensity for Transit Use by Urbanization and Vehic le Ownership . C-18 Figure C-18. Propensity for Transit Use by MSA Population and Home Ownership C-19 Figure C-19. Propensity for Transit Use by Urbanization and Home Ownership C-20 Figur e C-20 Propensity for Transit Use by MSA Population and Life Cycle . C-2 1 Figure C-21. Propensity for Transit Use by Urbanization and Life Cycle . . C-22 Figure C-22 Propensity for Transit Use by MSA Population and Housing Density C-23 Figure C-23. Propensi ty for Transit Use by Urbanization and Housing Density . C-24 Figure C-24. Propensity for Transit Use by MSA Population and Population Dens ity C-25 Figure C-25. Propensity for T ransit Use by Urbanization and Population Density . C-26 Figure C-26 Propensity for Transit Use by MSA Population and Employment Density C-27 Figure C 27 Propensity for T ransit Use by Urbanization and Employment Density . C-28 Figure C-28. Propensity for T ransit Use by MSA Population and Proximity to Transit Stops C-29 Figure C-29. Propensity for T ransit Use by Urbanization and Proximity to Transit Stops C-30 Figure C-30. P ropensity for Transit Use by MSA Population and Frequency of Use C-31 Figure C-31. Propensity for T ransit Use by Urbanization and Frequency of Use . . C-32

PAGE 14

CHAPTER} INTRODUCTION During the past 30 to 40 years, the portion of personal trips carried by public transit has declined in America. Along with other factors, this decline has recently created a strong interest in a better under stand ing of transit markets, both current and future, in this country. This intere st is evident by three recent reports produced for the Transit Cooperative Research Program: Building Transit Ridership: An Exploration ojTransits Market Share (Charles River Associates, 1997 ) The Public Policies That Influence It and Transit Markets of the Future: The Challenge of Change (Rosenbloom, 1998) and A Handbook: Usi ng Market Segmentation Strategies to Increase Transit Ridership (Northwest Research Group, 1998). The first report examines policies that have some potential for increasing transit's market share and might be pursued by local agencies. The secon d report identifies potential transit markets that may emerge as a result of expected demographic, socio-economic, and technological changes in the future . The third report provides guidelines to help transit agencies implement market segment ation strategies to better understand their transit sub-markets and increase their ridership This document has been prepar ed as an information base for people involved in the planning, operating, marketing and decision-making of public transit to help them better understand curr ent transit markets in America It characterizes public transit as it is today from a number of perspectives that are believed to be useful to their professional activities. The characterization of public transit in America is based on an analysis of the Nationwide Personal Transportation Survey (NPTS) data base, which includes information from five surveys conducted in 1969, 1977, 1983, 1990, and 1995. The NPTS data base provides an o pportunity to develop current and useful information to aid .in public transit planning and analysis. Information from the NPTS data base can help the transit industry hone their understanding of 1-1 travel behavior and reflect this knowledge in their policy and service planning. While the NPTS data base is a relatively small sample of public transit trips in the nation and inappropriate for service planning in a specific geography, an understanding of travel behavior provides knowledge that can be used to shape the transit industry's understanding of customer needs and behavior. TI1e scale of this analysis is limited to the 1995 NPTS. While it is desirable to have good knowledge on how travel behavior has evolved over time, changes in survey method, especially between the 1995 and earlier surveys have made direct comparisons across surveys less meaningful. The 1995 NPTS was chosen for this analysis because it is the most recent and it includes a number of enhancements to survey content, survey method, and the resulting data set over previous surveys. The most notable enhancements include the addition of questions on public attitudes about transportation, the change from recollection to travel d iary for trip recording, an d the addition of characteristics for both residential and employment sites. These enhancements have dramatically improved data quality and enriched the data base for analyzing issues related to public transit in America. The scale of this analysis is also limited to describing transit's trips, users, and markets, rather than determining the causality of various relationships related to public transit markets. The scope of analysis is limited to eight perspectives of public transit, including: Public attitudes about p ublic transit; Perceived availability and proximity of public transit; Extent of transferring; Perceived characteristics of pub lic transit trips (distance, trav el time, speed and waiting time); Public transit's market shares;

PAGE 15

Public transit,s sub-markets; Propensity for transitu.e by people who percei ve public transit to be available to them; and Public transit's market penetration. The first four perspectives describe public transit markets in terms of its share in the overall travel marlcet, the distribution of public transit trips among groups of its users, the relative level of usage among population groups. and its penetration into the general population. Propensity for uans. it use measures the relative usage of public transit by a given population group, taking into account the number of persons from this population group who perceive public transit to be availab le Equivalently, it measures the per capita use of public transit for a given population group relative t o the per capita use of public transit nationwide. Propensity for transit use is calculated by dividing the proportion of publi c tran sit trips a given population group makes by tbe proportion that group represents of all persons who perceive public transit 10 be available Public transit's market penetration represents the sbare of persons in the general population who use publi c transit during a given period of time. The last four perspectives describe various charac teristics of public transit trips and its users. Five types of public attitudes are included: public transit users' attitudes about highway performance ; public attitudes about public transit in general; public transit usen' reasons for using public transit for all purposes ; people's reasons for not using public transit to travel to worlc; and public transit users' attitudes abou t the severity of problem areas in using public transit. Availability and proximity of public transit are closely related. In NPTS, availability measures a macrolevel of transit being available, while proximity measures a micro-level of transit being available Specifically, availability gives tbe proportion of people who perceive public transit 10 be available in tbe city or town in which they live while proximity gives tbe proportion of people who perceive that their residence is within a quarter mile of the nearest transit stop. The NPTS data base is the only nationwide source that contains information on modal choice for each component of a linked trip Transferring is examined from two aspects: I) distribution of linked trips with respect to the number of transfers involved; and 2) pe rcent of unlinked trip s that ore transfer trips. Five characteristics of public transit trips are 1-2 examined, including perceived trip distance trave l time (excluding waiting time), waiting time, trave l speed (excl uding waiting time), and ove rall speed (including waiting time). While the National Transit Data Base may be used to characterize public transit trips in terms of their length in distance length in time, a nd travel speed, this characterization is limited to actual values of these characteristics and is for unlinked trips. It is believed that perception rather than reality dri,cs behavior These perspectives will be described through the use o f statistics at the national level and by population groups, land use characteristics, scale of metropolitan areas, and area density. Information provided in thi s document complements other data sources at the national level related to public transit in Americ a, such as the decennial censuses from the U.S. Bureau of the Census, the American Housin g Survey from the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the National Transit Data Base from the Federal Transit Administration. Both the decennial censuses and the American Housing Survey focus on commuting trips. The National Transit Data Base prov ides an important information base on the physical system of public transit, services provided and consumed, and financia l characteristics of service provision. This document is presented in five chapters and tbree appendices. This cbaprer introduus the topics in the document. Chapter 2 describes the statistical sources used in the study, issues in using the data sources, and the major terms used to aggregate and present data. Cbapter 3 places public transit in proper context with trends in demographics, vehicle ownership, and personal travel over the 26 y ears between 1969 and 1 995. Chapter 4 shows the results. The objective is to present fmdings on public attitudes, transit availability, transit proximity to residents, the extent of transferring, trip characteristics, and market penetration and to summarize the findings on transit marl<;et shares, transit sub-mmets, and propensity fo r tran sit use Chapter 5 draws implications from tbe results presented in the report Appendices A through C provide detailed statistics on transit's market share sub-markets, and propensity for transit use. The primary objective is to show the influence of the scale and density of areas and transit dependency on transit markets.

PAGE 16

CHAPTER2 DATA RESOURCES INTRODUCTION Two of the cha lle nges in better understanding public transit are fully understanding the data sou r ces for the statistics presented and t h e technical language used by analysts in characte ri zing public transit. The sol e data source in this report is the Nationwide P ersona l Transportat ion Survey series, which includes five surveys that were conducted in 1 969, 1977, 1983, 1990, and 1995, respective l y The main body of this document relies on the 1995 NPTS, which is the focus of the description here. The earlier surveys are briefly discussed in terms of differences be tween them and t he 1995 NPTS. Technic a l tenns includ e definitions of personal household, and land use characteristics and geograph i cal areas that are used to assemble and present the statistics 1995 NPTS The 1 995 NPTS is a sampl e survey of the nation s daily personal travel. It is the only authoritative source of national data on daily trips including, but not limited to: purpose of the trip (e. g., work shopping); me an s of transportation used (e.g., car bus); how l ong the trip took i. e. travel time; time of day the trip took place; and day of week the trip too k plac e. These data were collected for all trips, all modes, all purposes, al l trip l engths, and all areas of the cou ntry. The 1 995 NPTS was conducted during the period from May 1995 through Jun e 1996. Lik e all larg e scale sample surveys, it involved several stages of data collection ( FHW A, 1997a). F i rst, a stratified random 2-1 sample of telephone numbers were obtaine d To control sampling varia tion and increase coverage of trans i t trips the sampling frame was strat i fied by geography (Cen s us division), metropolitan area s i ze and the p r esence of subway or elevated rail systems Second, the s amp l e of telephone numbers was screened to identify residenti a l households People Jiving in college dormi t ories nursing homes, other medical institutions, prisons, and on m ili tary bases we r e exc l uded from the sample. Third, an adult mem b er of the hou sehold was asked a series of question s about the perso n s an d vehicles of the household Followin g th i s hous e hold interview, the household v.'llS ass i gned a travel d a y for trip reporting Then, tr avel diaries for each person 5 ye ar s and older were prepared and mailed to the household. Following the household's trave l day, interviewers called to conduct the person interview for each eligib l e household member. A six-day window was established to obtain the trave l day data During the person interviews, travel djary information was recorded in a computer along with r esponses to a number of additional questions. The 1995 NPTS response rate s are summarized in Table 21 which inc ludes the partial response rate obtained at each s t age of the survey, and the cumulative response rate up to that s tage in the process. Almost 1 1 3,000 telephone numbers we re sampled initiall y for household screening. Of these num b ers, 73. 2 percent were from residential households. Household interviews were completed for 75.6 percent of the re s idential households Over 93 percent of the households that comp l eted household interviews accepted the travel d iari es, and sufficient person interview s were completed for 72. 1 percent of these households to classify them as usea b le for the 1995 NPTS Within the u s eab l e hous e holds perso n interv i ews were comp l eted with 92.2 percent of th e

PAGE 17

eligible persons. The overall response rates were 55.3 percent for household interviews and 34.3 percent for person interviews. Of the useable households in the final data base, about half of the households are in the base sample and the other half represent the add on areas of New York State; Commonwealth of Massachusetts; Oklahoma Table 2-1. Response Rates for the 1995 NPTS. 2-2 City, Oklahoma; Tulsa, Oklahoma; and Seattle, Washington. Each useable household in the sample was assigned a specific 24-hour "T rave l Day and a I 4-day travel Period" for which detailed data on all travel were Travel days were assigned to all seven days of the week, including hoHdays. The intent was to represent travel across an entire year. Stages Responses Single Stage Rate Cumulative Rate T otal Sample of Telephone Numbers 112,960 NA NA Residential Households 82,663 73.2 73.2 Household Interviews Completed 62,468 75.6 55.3 Diary Accepted 58,276 93.3 51.6 Usable Households 42,033 72.1 37.2 Person Interviews Completed 95,360 92.2 34.3 Sour: Chapter 3 fHWA (1997a) NA mtM$ not Jpplicable. Data from the 1995 NPTS are available from the U.S. Department of Transportation in six separate files, four of which are used for this study. These four files include "Household File," "Person Filet" "Travel Day File," and "Segmented File" (Table 2-2). The Household File contains data on household demographic, socio-economic, and residence location characteristics for 42,033 households. The Person File contains data on personal and household characteristics, attitudes about transportation, and general travel behavior characteristics such as usual modes of transportation to travel to work for 95,360 persons. The Travel Day File contains trip-based data on trip purposes, modes, trip lengths in terms o f time and distance and trip start times for 409,025 trips. The Segmented File contains data on 3, 779 public transit trips that had 'segments." Segmented trips will be discussed more later in th. is chapter. Each file has its own weighting variable to expand the sample to provide national estimates in the case of the Household and Person Files, and annualized national estimates in the case o f the Travel Day and Segmented Files. Table 2-2. Sample Size of 1995 NPTS Files Used. Data Files Sample Size Household File 42,033 Person File 95, 360 Travel Day File 409,025 Segmented File 3 ,779 Sooroc: Chapter 3 FHWA (1997a). COMPARAB I LITY WITH EARLIER NPTS SURVEYS The I 995 NPTS data set includes a number of enhancements to earlier NPTS's in survey methodology survey content, and the resulting data base. The most notable enhancements include the change in survey methodology from recollection to travel diary for trip recording, the add i tion of a series

PAGE 18

questioos on publi c attitudes about public transit and other components of the U.S transportation system, and the addition o f characteristics for both residential and employmen t sites into the data base. Table 2-3 shows the additions to survey content and the data base and Table 2-4 shows the changes in survey methodology. The chang es in survey methodology make the I 995 NPTS incomparable t o ea rlier ones. Viben comparing the 1995 and 1 990NPTS data sets directly there is an in c rease of about 1.1 trips per person per day, which represents a 35 percent increase Using selected regional surveys, FHW A's research indicates 2-3 that of this increase is a real increase -in travel, and two-thirds due to changes in survey m e t hods implemented in the 1995 survey (FHWA 1997b) FHWA, however, has not yet developed adjustment factors for more complicated analy sis. For examp l e, it is unc l ear exactly how the c hanges i n survey methods have affected trip reporting by purpose, travel mode, or other attribu tes of travel. Since adjustment factors have not been made available for analysis that is more complicated than compu t ing aggregate travel this study relies predominantly on the 1 995 NPTS in characterizing public transit. Table Z 3 Additions to the 1 995 NPTS Content and Data Base. Category Addition Description Survey Public Person File: Content Anirudes about 1 Re a sons for not using public transit to t ravel to work; Public Transit 2. Problems that users face in using public transit. Frequency of Person File : Use Number of times used public transit during the rwo months before interview Data Area Density All files: Base Rural, Small Town, Suburb, Second City, and Urban Housing Household File: Density Residenti a l housing units per square mile. Employment Person File: Density Jobs per square mile at work sites Neighborhood Household File : Characteristics Distribution of households with certain characteristics. Soutcc: FHWA (1997a)

PAGE 19

2-4 TabJe. 2-4. Cbaoges io the 1995 NPT S S u rvey Metbodo l ogy. C h anges Topic From To Respondent No advance Advance let1ers Contact lette rs N o incentive $2 per person Trip Recall Trave l Diary Reporting All trips for Household roster each person of trips colle c t e d inde pendentl y Did not Specifi c ally specifically confirmed zero confinn zero tri p s trips Proxy from Proxy from diary memory Trip definitio n Clearer trip definition On-line edits Add itional online edits Compl eted At least one A t least 5 0 household person per c e n t of the defin i tion compl e t ed the adults completed travel day trip the trave l da y section trip section Source. : Exhibit 3. 1 FHWA ( 1997a) I S S UES I ntrodu c tlon Three broad issues a ffect the analy s is of the 1995 NPTS data set and the interpretatio n of its results: the defmition of public transit, the narure of trips collected from the 1995 NPTS, limitations of sample estimates Probable Impacts Imp roved response. Legitimizes the survey wit h respondents. Improved response More trips reported More shorter, incidental trips. More trips for family & personal busines s and social & recreational purposes. Include trips that may have been forgotten. More consistent trip data Lower respondent burden. More coherent p icrure of household trip making. More accurate coun t of per sons w h o mad e no trips on their travel day. Mo r e t rips reported. More accurate reporting of trip characteristics. Easier for re sponde nt to report trips Intervi e wers more attuned to pick up incide n tal trips. More coherent trip report i ng Improved data quality. A mor e accurate representat i on of travel by the household unit. and sample size Und e rstanding the oarure of tr ips collected from the I 995 NPTS is critical for understanding p u blic transit trips because transit trips often i nvolve mul t ip l e modes and segments. Und e rstan d i n g s ome of the sampling issues is also critic al primarily for understanding the fa c t that e s timates b a sed on a sample will in g e neral, diffe r from those based on a census

PAGE 20

Definition of Public Transit Public transit in this report includ es four categories of transit mode: Bus, Commuter Train, Streetcarffrolley, and Subway/Elevated Rail. The bus category includes intercity buses, mass transit systems, and shuttle buses that are available to the general public Also, Dial-A-Bus and Senior Citizen buses th at are available to the public are included. However, shuttle buses operated by a government agency or private industry for the conveni ence of employees, contracted or chartered buses and school buses are excluded. The commute r train category includes commuter trai ns and passenger trains other than elevated rail transits and subways. Amtrak intercity service is excluded, however. The streetcar/trolley category inclu des trolleys, streetcars, and cable cars. The subway/elevated rail category includes elevated railways and subway trains in a city. The statistics presented in this report include intercity buses, which the 1995 NPTS does not separa te from other bus services. F or those bus trips in the 1995 NPTS that have information on trip lengih in tenns of distance, 1.78 percent ar e over 100 miles and 2.55 percent are over 75 miles. Because of their distance, including these trips can result in overestimation of cenain averages such as av e rage trip di s tance for buses Nature of NPTS Trips To understand the nature of NPTS trips, one needs to understand how trips that involve multiple modes are reported. Consider an example. You are dropped off at a bus stop to take a bus, then transfer to rail, and finally walk to work. Fo r you, th is entire sequence of home to work is viewed as one trip for the sole purpose of reaching the work destination. For the FTA National Transit Database, it is count ed as 2 transit trips. For the transportation planner, it is viewed as one linked trip composed of four unlinked trips. For the 1995 NPTS, it is recorded as one travel day trip. 2-5 One problem with this approach of recording those trips that involve multiple modes as single trips is that it may underestimate transit usage. Consider, for examp l e, a linked trip that started with a bus ride to a car rental site and continued with a drive. The bus ride would not be counted in the Tr avel D ay File if the drive is longer in distance. In order to collect more complete data on multi modal trips, with particular emphasis on the use of public transit, the 1995 NPTS, as in the I 990 segmented certain travel day trips into their component parts. A trave l day trip was segmented if both of these two conditions were met: there was a change of vehicle or a change of mode on the trip; and one of the modes used was a public transit mode or Amtrak. Public transit includes bus, subway, el evated rail, commuter train, streetcar, or trolley. Tri ps in which the respondent we n t from one private vehicle to another were not segme nt ed There was a li mit of 4 segments per trip, and the typical day trip information was collected, along with the mod e, start time, and duration of each of the segments. Table 2-5 shows the num ber of travel day trips that involved public transit and separates them by whether they are segmented. A total of 7 ,546 travel day trips involve public transit of which 3, 779 are segmented and 3 767 are not segmented. For non segmented trips, public transit is the main means of transportation and no tran sfers are involved between public transit vehicles. Among the segmented trips, 4 7 involve public transit only as a minor mode. Without segmentation, these 47 transit trips would be undercounted. The implications of segmentation are s ignifi cant. To illustrate, the total numbers for linked and unlinked public transit trips arc deri ved from the 1995 NPTS (Table 2-6). First, the total annual number of lin ked trips is 6,666 million, of which 3,4 4 1 million are segmented trips and 3,225 million are non-segmented trips. The total number of unlinked trips is 8,327 million. Of these unlinked trips, 3,225 million are unsegmented trips and 5, I 02 million are made as part of3,440 million segmented trips.

PAGE 21

2-6 Table 2-S. Sample Public Transit Trips by Trip Segmentation. Public Transit Mode Segmented Non-Segmented Total Bus as main mode 1,957 2,724 4,68 1 Subway/elevated rail as main mode 1,254 732 1,986 Streetcar/trolley as main mode 21 33 54 Commuter train as main mode 500 278 778 Public transit as minor mode 47 0 47 Total 3,779 3,767 7 546 Souroes ; Appen
PAGE 22

nation. All applican t s and direct beneficiaries of Federal ass istance under 49 USC 5307 (fo rme rly Section 9 of the Fed eral Transit Act, as amended) are s ubject t o the National T r ansit Database Reporting Syste m FTA received dat a from 537 transit agencies for 1995 Of th.is numb er, 55 received exemptions from detailed reportin g and 13 were deleted due to incomplete data. On the other band APTA's numbe r is a n estimate of national totals APTA supplements the number of unlinked trips fr om its member agencies and those agencies subject to the Na tional Trans i t Database Reporting System by an estimate of unlinked trips from other agencies that do not report to e ither APTA o r FTA. These agencies, whose annua l unlinked trips are unavailable, are s mall b ut account Table 2-8. Number of Public TI"'DSit Ageacies. federally Funded Agencie s 2-7 for 9 ou t of every 10 agencies in the nation (Table 2 -8 ) They are agencies operating in rutal areas or providing specialized tranSportllti on, and other agencies T h e 1995 NPTS number is also a n est i mat e of national totals Public tran s it in the 1 995 NPTS i n c ludes bus, sub\\'3y, elevated train, commuter train, or s treetcar service. Transi t service s incl ude only those that are available for use by the general public for local o r commuter travel, including dial-a-bus and senior citizen bus service. Long distance services or those chartered for specific trips are excluded. It is a l so possible that the 199 5 NPTS numb e r may include trips made on jimeys and other fonns of bu s services provided by the private sector that are not in cluded in the APT A or FTA numb e r Other Total NTD Age nc ies Rural Agencies Spc<:ialized Transportation Agen cies Agencies 552 1,074 3,594 S""'"'' TableS. APTA (1997) Households without Telephone Serv ices The issue of excluding households without telephone serv ices is relevant because it may resu l t in undercounting transit trips. There is conc ern that the 199 5 NPTS data collection undercounted low-income househo ld s because the 1995 NPTS sample included onl y h o useholds with telephone services Households without telephon e services are more likely to be low income than high income. Table 2-9 shows three distributions of household income. The first column is based on the 1995 Current Population Survey (CPS) of the Census. The middle column is the non-weighted diSttibution from the 1995 753 5,973 NPTS The last column is the weighted distribution from the 1995 NPTS. Both households w ith very low and very h l gb incomes are undercouoted in the income-reporting sample of the 1995 NPTS Weighting lessens the und ercounting for low-inco me househ o l ds but worn.ns the undercounting for high income ones. One function of weighting is that all h ouseholds are accounted for in the distribut ion with or without telephone s ervi ces. However, the cause of undercounting lo w-income and high-incom e households is unclear. About 17 percent of the households in the 1995 NPTS d id not report their income It is poss1ble that those not reporting income were households with either very low o r very high incomes

PAGE 23

2-8 Table 2-9. Comparison of Distributions of 1995 Household Income between 1995 NPTS and Census. 1995 Household Income 1995 Census CPS 1995 NPTS Sample I 995 NPTS Weighted Below $5,000 3.66% 2.34% 2.84% $5,000$9,9 8.57% 6 27% 7.36% $10,000$14,999 8.75% 6.86% 7.68% $15,000$19,999 8.33% 8.65% 9.28% $20,000 $24,999 7.58% 6 81% 7 .19% $25,000$34,999 14.22% 16.60% 17.33% $35,000 $49,999 16. 94% 22.17% 21.29% $50,000 $74,999 17.10% 17.35% 1 5.43% $75,000 $99,999 7.71% 7.62% 6.73% Above $100,000 7.14% 5.33% 4 .87% Sources: The Ccmus d istribution comes from Table No 720 Bureau of the Census (1997). The distributions from the 199S NPTS v.-ere derived ftom tlte Household file. Limitation of Sample Estimates Most statistics in this report are sample estimates, i.e., they refer to an entire universe of units (households, persons, or trips), but are constructed from the 1995 NPTS, a sample survey. In constructing a sample estimate, an attempt is made to come as close as is feasible to the corresponding value that would be obtained from a complete census of the universe. Estimates based on a sample will, however, generally differ from the values from a census. As a result, sample estimates involve errors. Two classifications of errors are associated with sample estimates: sampling error and non-sampling error. The sampling error of an estimate arises from the use of a sample, rather than a census to estimate the universe value. The partic ular sample used in a survey is only one of a large number of possible samples of the same size which could have been selected using the same sampling procedure. Estimates derived from the different samples would, in general, differ from each other The standard error is a measure of the variation among the estimates derived from all possible samples. The standard error is the most commonly used measure of the sampling error of an estimate. Non-sampling errors arise from non-sampling sources. T wo kinds of non-sampling errors exist: random and non-random Random non-sampling errors arise because of the varying interpretation of questions (by respondents or interviewers) and varying actions of coders, keyers, and other processors. Some randomness is also introduced when respondents must estimate values. Non-random non-sampling errors result from: Total non response (no usable data obtained for a sampled unit), Partial or item non-response (only a portion of a response may be usable), Inability or unwillingness on the part of respondents to provide correct information, Difficulty interpreting questions Mistakes in recording or keying data, Errors of collection or processing, and Coverage problems (over-coverage and under coverage of the target universe). For an estimate calculated from a sample survey, the total error in the estimate i s composed of the sampling error and the non-sampling e rror. Ideally estimates of the total error associated with statistics

PAGE 24

presented in this report should be given. However neither samp ling errors nor non-sampling errors are p r esented in this report. The magnitudes of non sampling errors cannot be es t imated from the 1995 NPTS. While sampling errors can be estimated from the 1995 NPTS with specially d e sign e d software the most commonly used statistical software, such as SAS and SPSS, do not correctly calculate sampling errors because of the complex sample designs i n the 1995 NPTS (FHW A 1997a, Appendi x G). N umber o f Cases on Transit Related Questions The issue of case numbers is relevant because a relatively small number of cases resu l ts in relative l y 2 9 large sampling errors. Consequent l y, we are l ess confident in d ifferences in the measurement o f a particular variable for different population groups. Variables re l ated to attitude s service quality, and usage are discussed separate l y below. Related to Pub ljc Attitudes T ab l es 2-10 t hrough 2-12 show the number of cases r elated to public attitudes abou t transp o rtat ion systems. Some of the variables have r elat ivel y small numbers of cases, including several variables measuring reasons for not using public transit as the usual mod e of travel to work and those variables meas u ring reasons for using public trans i t. Tabl e 21 0 N umber of Cases R elate d t o Problems Publ i c Tra n s i t Users Experience. Variables Valid Cases Legitimate U nknown Skip or Large Small No Refused Problem Problem Problem Having access to a car when you need it 836 749 2 372 91,3 82 21 Cost of travel by public transi t 850 1 ,108 2 0 1 3 9 1 382 7 Transit stations and vehicles not c l ean 1 016 1,256 1 ,532 91,544 12 Difficulty with crowding or getting a seat 1 732 2,319 3,723 87,566 20 Worry with crime on public transit 682 1 350 1,773 91,5 4 4 11 Time spent on public transit 1,809 2,755 3 ,192 87,566 38 Public transit available time o f day needed 779 1,222 1 ,962 91,3 82 15 Time and aggravation with transfers 561 1 170 2 039 9 1 ,544 46 Soun:c:s: Appendi x C, Petson F ile Code Book, FHWA (1997s) The toW number o f persons i s 95 . 360 foe llll variables. Those tesititnatel y skipped 3tt primarily non-users.

PAGE 25

2-10 Table 2-11. Number of Cases for Reasons Not UsiDg Public Transit as Usual Mode of Travel to Work. Variables Valid Cases Legitimate Unknown or Yes No Skip Refused Public transit too expensive 122 8,899 86,321 18 Public transit not available at work 3,381 5,641 86,321 17 Public transit takes too much time 1,070 7,952 86,321 17 Need own vehicle to do other things 1 ,373 7 ,648 86 ,321 1 8 Public transit schedule not convenient 2,182 6 840 86,321 17 Public transit stops too far from home 778 8 ,244 86,321 17 Have company car 27 8 ,995 86,321 17 Don't like to use 3,395 5,629 86,321 1 5 Have own car 186 8 836 86,32 1 17 Short distance tr ip 496 8 526 86,321 17 Sources: Appendix C, Pers<>n File Code Book FHW A (1997a). The total number o f persons is 9 5 . 360 for all variables. Table 2-12. Number of Cases Related to Reasons for Using Public Transit. Reasons Valid Cases I can do some thing else 67 It is faster than a private vehicle 68 I don't drive or don't like to drive 68 Avoids buying a car 65 It is better for the environment 32 It a voids stress of driving in congested roads 34 Do not have access to a car 33 Costs less than driving 65 It is the most convenient way for me 34 Sowce: Table 9, fHWA (1997c).

PAGE 26

2-11 Related to Service Quality Tables 2-13 and 2-14 show the number of cases for variables that are related to perceived availabil.ity and proximity of public transit, respectively. These numbe rs are reasonably good. Table 2-1 5 shows the number of cases that are related to the waiting time for public transit as the actual mode used or as the usual mode to travel to work. Table 2-13. Number of Cases Related to Availability of Public Transit Service. Variables Valid Cases Legitimate Unknown or Yes No Skip Refused Bus service available 27,420 13,79 1 0 866 Non-bus transit service available 8,231 18,970 14,606 226 Streetcar service availab)e 999 7 232 33,576 226 Subway service available 3,561 4 ,670 33 576 226 Commuter train service avai1able 5,594 2,637 33,576 226 Source: Appendix C. Household F ile Code Book, FHWA (J997a) The total n\lmber of boos<: holds is 42.033 ror all vMiables. Table 2-14. Number of Cases Related t o Proximity o(Public Transit Service. Variables Valid Cases Legitimate Unknov.'Jl or Skip Refused Miles to nearest bus stop 26,160 14,613 1,260 Miles to nearest streetcar stop 907 40,808 318 Miles to nearest subway stop 3,647 38,246 320 Miles to nearest commuter train stop 5 388 36,213 432 Soui'Qe: Appendix C. Household File Code Book, FHWA (J997a) The toW number of households is 42.033 for all vMiables.

PAGE 27

2-12 Table 2-15. Number of Cases Related t o Waiting Time for Poblic Transit. Variables Valid Legitimate Unknown or Total Cases Skip Refused Time waited for transportation (actual mode) 6,774 401,56 7 684 409,025 Time waited for bus (usual mode to work) 1,837 93,465 58 95,360 Time waited for subway (usual mode to work) 456 94,167 737 95,360 Time waited for streetcar (usual mode to work) 2o 95,330 4 95,360 Time waited for commuter train (usual mode to work) 684 94,660 16 95,360 Sou:tecs: Aflpcndix Fil e Code Book and Day Trip Fil e Code Book, FHW A (1997a). The fust variable iS based oa the following question about day trips; How many minutes did you v.;1it for the transportation means of the trip? The last four varl.ables are based on the following qutSlion i n the peiSOD interview : i'Iow ml"WK>n if'yo u t main, usutl mean$ t<> get 10 work i.$ ptJblie tnl:n$.it? Related to Public Transit Use Tables 2-16 through 2-20 show the number of cases for variables measuring public transit use. These include frequency of public transit use, modal choic e for segmented trips and modal choice for non segmented trips. Table 2-16. N umber of Cases Related to Frequency of Public Transit Use. Tw o or more days a week (J I + times) 5,172 About once a week (5-10 times) 1,457 Once or twice a month (2-4 times) 2,817 Less than once a month (one time) 2,048 Never 38,541 Transit Unavailable 27,982 Legitimate Skip 17,082 Unknown or Refused 261 Total 95,360 Sources: Appendix C. Person File Code: Book, 199$ NPTS User Gultk (FHW A, 1997). ihose skipped art persons to whom tfle following quesOOn was not asked because \be knew that public OVISit service was unavaiJable. 1'he Q...esti-on WlteS: In the past l\.\'0 months, about how often have you used publie transit such as buses, subways, Strtclcan.. or oommuter trains?

PAGE 28

2-13 TableZ-17. Number of Cases Related to Usual Modes to Work. Get to work usually by Val.id Cases Legitimate Unknown or Yes No Skip Refused Bus 1,895 4 4,734 48,681 so Subway/elevated ra il 1 ,193 45,436 4 8,681 so Streetcar/trolley 30 46,599 48,68 1 s o Commuter train 700 4S,930 48,681 4 9 Appendix: C. Person Fil e Cod e Book... FHW A {l997a) Thetotal number o f persoM is 95,.360 fOt all vari3blt$ 1"he question is: How do you usu.aJJy get t o work? Please tell me all the kinds oftransponation yo u U$Ually use. Table 2-18. Numbe r of Cases Related to Maio Means of Transportation to Work. Bus I ,161 Subway/elevated rail 82S Streetcar/trolley I S Commuter train S47 Others 44, 1 3 1 Legitimat e skip 48,68 1 Unknown or refused 52 Total 95, 412 Sources: Appcn di)( C. Person File Code Ik>c>l<. FHWA (1997a) 1 'he ques.tion is: What is the main means oftra11Sponatioo you usuaJJy use t o get t o w o rk-that i s, the ooc usc:d for most of the distance? Table 2-19. Nu.mber of Cases Related to Main Means of Transportati on for Travel Da y Trips. Bus 4 68 1 Subway/elevated rail 1 986 Streetcar/trolley 54 Commuter train 778 Others 387,68 5 Legitimate sk ip 0 Unknown or refused 13,8 68 Total 409,025 Sources: 1\pptndix C. Person Fil e C<>
PAGE 29

2-14 Table :Z-20. Number of Cases Related to Mod e ofTraosportatioo for Segmeoted Trips. Mode Segment I Segmen t 2 Segment3 Segment4 Bus 1,084 1,538 282 56 Subway / e l ev a ted rail 458 1,.107 208 39 Streetc ar /trolley 1 5 19 8 I Commuter train 148 425 82 12 Private ve hic le 193 59 1 05 45 Walk 1 798 549 1 145 295 Others 43 65 49 7 Leg itimate skip 0 0 1,884 3,31 4 Unknown or refused 39 15 13 6 Total 3 ,779 3 ,779 3 779 3 779 Sources: A ppendix C. Segment File Cock Book, FHW A ( 1997a). The questK>n is: What i.s the means of transportation you used f o r the .segmenl? The !e&itimatel)' sldppt d cases in scgmcnlS J and 4 an: for trips lbat had enckd. TERMS The terms used in this docum ent to describe public transit can be grouped in to four categories: personal characteristics, household charac t eristics, lan d use c haracteristics and g eograp hy. Persona l Characteristics Five personal characteristics are u sed in presenting the statistics in this document: person age, gend er, driver's license status, working statu s, and frequency of using p u bli c transit in general. Gender and license status need no further ex p lanation. Person age is grouped into three cate g o ri e s : under 18, 18 to 64 and 65 or older. The same age grouping is used by APT A (1992) in its profiling of Americans in pub l ic transit. Working status refers to whether one was working full time, working part time, no t working or retired duri ng th e week before the interview for the 1995 NPTS. Frequ ency of using public tr ansit refers to how freque otly a p e rson used public transit during the two months before th e i nterview It has four categori.es: two or more times a week, about once a week once or twice a month, and Jess than once a month. Household Characteristics Six hou s eho l d characterist i cs are used in describing public transit usage in this document: r ace, ethnicity, household i nc ome, household vehicle ownership, home O\mership, and hous e hold life c ycle. Race has three categories: White, Black, and others. E thnicity has two categories : Hispanic and non Hispanic. Hous e hold income is grouped into three ranges: under $15,000, $15,000 to $49,999, and $5 0 000 or over These three income groups are mutually e xclu sive. Th e same gro uping for household incom e is used by APTA (1992) in its profiling of Americans in public transit. Household vehicle ownership is div ide d into three ranges: 0 v e hicles, I vehicle, and 2 v ehicles or more. Home ownersh ip has two categories: owner ve rs us renter. Household life cycle also has two categories: single-adult households v e rsus multi-adult househo lds.

PAGE 30

Land Use Characteristics Three land use characteristics are used in describing public transit in this document : housing density, popula tion den sity, and employment density. Housing density refers to residential housing units per square mile Population density refers to residential population density in tenns of residents per square mile. Employment density refers to jobs per square m ile at work sites. Information on employm ent density is available only for workers. Both housing density and popu la tion density are based o n census block group data while employment density is based on census tract data. These land use characteristics are part of the added content of the 1995 NPTS (Table 2-3). Geography Two geographic units are used incJuding metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) and urbanization classification. The general concept of a metropolitan statistical area is that of a core area containing a large population nucleus, together w ith adjacent communities having a high degree of economic and social integration with that core. Currently defined MSAs are based o n application of 1990 standards to 1990 decennial census data. Specifically, each MSA must include at least: (a) one city with 50,000 or more inhabitants, or (b) a Census Bureau-defined urbanized area (of at l east 50, 000 inhabitants) and a total metropolitan populatio n of at least I 00,000 (75,000 in New England). The 19 95 NPTS divides all areas in the U nited States into six categories: Outside MSA and five rang e s of popu la tion size for MSAs, including under 250 thousand, 250,000 to 49,999, 500,000 to 999,999, l million to 2,999,999, and three million and over. The variable describing MSA population size is used to measure the scal e of areas. 2-15 In addition to metropolitan statistical areas, urban classification is the o ther unit of geography for presenting data. Five categories are included: rural areas, small towns, second cities, suburban areas, and urban areas Second eities in t his classificat i on resemble edge cities conceprually but differ in how they are defined. Edge cities are subjectively defined w i t h community perceptions and measurements of space On t h e other han d, second cities can be quantitatively defined with population densi ties. This urbanization classificat i on was developed by Miller and Hodges (1994). Their methodology defines a grid system of r oughly 900,000 cells of abnut four square miles each across the United States. The total population of a given cell and its e ight surrounding cells (a 3 x 3 grid) divided by the total area of all n ine cells detennines the given cell's grid density. In addition the highest grid cell density in a 5 mi le radius (5x5 grid excluding the comers) determines the l ocal density maximum in an area. Population centers emerge where grid cell densities only decrease moving away from a loca l maximum and no other maximum with a greater density appears in closer proximity. All grid cells are then ranked for th e nation into o ne hundred equal groups with the scale from 0 to 99. Area classifications depend on the grid cell density scale and population center densities Simple grid cell densities d e fine rural areas and small towns. This classification results in groupings similar to the groups created by the Urbanized Area defmition of I 000 persons per square mile minimum. Population center densities define urban areas and second cities. Areas around second cities and urban areas form suburban areas. Table 2-21 shows the definition s in detail. Th e 1995 NPTS data base includes two variables on urbanization classifications One results from using census tracks as the basic unit of geography for measuring population dens ity The other results from using census block groups as the basic unit of geography for measuring population density. The second is used for this study.

PAGE 31

2-16 Table 2-21 Definition ofUrbao Classification. Criteria Classification Grid Cell Density (GCD) Population Center Density (PCD) Rural GCD<=I9 Not Used Small Town 20<=GCD<'=39 Not Used Urban Area GCD>=40 & 0 .80 PCD + 9 8 PCD>=79 Second City GCD>=40 & 1.7368 P CD64.208 PCD<79 Suburban Area GCD>=40 & non-urban areas & non-s econd cit ies So41rce: RO$$ and Dunning ()997)

PAGE 32

CHAPTER3 TRENDS INTRODUCTION This chapter presents trends i n population, veh icles, vehicle travel person travel, and public transit's market share over the 26 years from 1969 and I 995. These trends are based on the NPTS data base. The purpose of this chapter is to place the following chapters in proper context so tha t the statistics there are better understood. CHANGES IN POPULATION AND VEHICLES Much of the material in this section comes from Federal Highway Administration's Our Nation's Travel: 1995 NPTS Early Results Report (FHW A, 1997b) 3-1 Growth of Population and Vehicles Table 3I and Figu re 3I show growth in population and vehic.Jes. Over the past twenty-six years ( 1 969-1995) population increased relatively modestly (29 percent). The increases in households (55 percent), workers (74 percent), and drivers (72 percent) are much larger. The most striking change in the data is the I 44 percent in c rease in household vehicles since 1969. The nation went from a society of one car per household in I 969 to a society of close to two cars per household in 1995, in a time during which household size declined by 17 percent. The most dramatic increase in househo ld vehicle ownership occurred between 1969 and 1 977 with steady growth since then. Table 3-1. Index of C baoges io Population aod Vehicles. Year Households Persons Drivers Workers Vehicles 1969 100 1 00 100 100 100 1977 121 108 1 24 123 166 1983 137 116 143 136 198 1990 149 121 158 156 228 1995 !55 129 172 1 74 244 Sow<:e: Tcebniul Append ix, FKWA (1997b).

PAGE 33

3 2 g 200 ------"' 150 -----] -1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 I-&-lbuseholds -e-Persons __,_Divers Workers _._ Somce: iabl e 3 1. Figure 3-1. Index of C h anges in Population and Vehicles. Stabilization of Vehicle Ownership Rates Despite the significant growth in the number of household vehicles over time the data from the 1 995 Table 3-2. Cbaoges io Vebide Ownership Rates. Year Vehicles per Household 1969 1.16 1977 !.59 1983 1.58 1990 1.77 1 995 1.78 Sout-: Technical Appendix, FHWA (199'7b). survey indicate that household vehicle ownership is beginning to stabilize (Table 3 2 and Figure 3 2) Thi s trend can be seen in the rates of veh i cles per household, vehicles per driver and vehicle s per worker. Vehicles per Worker Vehicles per Driver 0 .96 0 .70 1.2 9 0.94 1.39 0.98 1.40 1.0 1 1.34 1.00

PAGE 34

3 3 1.8 1.6 "' c. 1.4 :E "' 1.2 0 1.0 .!I .., > 0.8 0 6 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 -eVehicles per Household -bVehicles per IV orker -E>Vehicles per Driver I Som-ce: Table 3-2 Figure 3-2. Index o f Cbauges in Vebide Ownership Rates. Decline of Zero-Vehic le Households The number of households without a vehicle has deereas<:
PAGE 35

3-4 30 .2 I 1 -a-0 Vehicles !; :::;; :__,_1 Vehicle ii 20 .{g -----------. "------.!o2 Vehicles I 0 .::: --&3 + V ehicles i ::0 I 0 1 0 .,.. ........ --' 0 1965 1 970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 Soue: TabldJ. Figure3-3. Chan ges i n the N u mber of Househ olds b y Vebitle A vaila bility. CHAN G ES IN TRAV E L Sta t isti c s in cluded in this section are intended to show overall trends. The exact numbers in the trends shoul d not be taken liter a lly because of changes in s urvey methodology across the different NPTSs. Desp ite this caveat, the dramatic upward or downward trends are undisputable. Gro wth o f Ove rall Trave l Personal travel increased dramatical l y during the 26 years b etween 1969 and 1995 (Table 3-4) regardless whether p ersonal tra vel is measured by p erso n trips, person miles, vehicle trips, or vehicle m il es trave l ed (VMT). D ecli n e of T r an sit Market S hare Table 3-4. Index of Changes in Travel ( 1969=100). In eontrast to this in crea se in overall personal Year P ers o n P erso o Trips Miles 1969 100 100 1977 146 134 1983 155 139 1990 172 165 1995 267 243 Vebitle Trip s 100 125 145 182 263 VMT 100 117 129 182 266 travel, the proportion of per son trips made on public transit has declined by almost half during the same period (Table 3-5 and Figure 3-5). It is interesting to note th a t this decline in the market share of public transit has been highly corre l ated with the decline in both the share of non license d d r ivers in the popu l ation and t he share of zero-veh icle househo l ds among all househo l d s Two characteristics of this decline are worth noting (Pisarski 1992). First, in the general context of the decline of all alternatives to driving alone, transi t bas fared better than other alternatives, including Source: H u and Young (1993) and 1995 NPTS" carpooling and wal king. Thi s i s true at least in the

PAGE 36

case for the journey t o work. Second, this dec line in public transit s market share has been uniform across a ll the traditional users of public transit: women; all age groups, especially younger and older travelers; geographic area types; and d e mographic groups Table 3-5. Index of Changes in Shares of Transit Trips, Non-drivers, and 0-veb i cle Househo lds (1969<-100). Year Transit Non0-Vebicle Trips Drivers Households 1969 100 100 1 00 1977 79 84 74 1983 79 75 66 1990 65 67 45 1995 56 57 39 Source: Data on terovthiele housd1ofds from Table 3-3. Data on non&om flu and Yoon& ( 1993). Data Ol\ transit mark shate for 1%91 990 from H u and Young ( 1 992) and for 1995 from the Tra\'d Day File of the 1995 NPTS. Walk and b iey<:le trips 3lt excluded in computing modal $plil$1;)eeausc. they wctt not induded i n the 1969 survey. 3-5 On the other hand, the trend tells a posi tive story i f one looks at the numbers of public transit trips, non-licensed drivers, and zero-vehicle household s (Table 3-6 and Figure 3 -6) Non-licensed d rivers and zer o-vehicle hous e holds dec l ined not only in shares but also in absolute numbers. Despite this decline in the number of potential capt i ve riders of public transit t h e number of linked transit trips has not declined. This seems to indicate that trips made by choice riders have grov.'ll, and have grov.n faster than the decline in t he number of trips made by captive riders. Table 3-6. Index of Changes in Numbers of Transit Trips, Non-drivers, and 0-vebicle Households (1969=100). Year Transit Non0-Vehicle Trips Drivers Households 1969 100 100 100 1977 99 91 90 1983 112 87 90 1990 12 3 81 6 7 1 995 135 69 62 Sourte: Data on terovehlcle households from Table 3 Data on nondrhm fr<>m Hu and Yo\mg (J993). Dat3 on uansit trips for from tlu and Young (1992) and for 199S from the Day F i l e of the 199SNPTS.

PAGE 37

1 --e--PersonTrips --Person Miles -aVehicle Trips -+VMT 1 g 250 -8 150 E Source: Table 34 1970 1975 1980 Figure 3-4. Index of Cbanges in Overall Trave l '1985 1990 1995 -B-% Non-drivers 0 -veb.icle Households -1!r-% Transit Share I 100 g 75 II $ "' c ll ] so !965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 995 2000 So .. ce: Table 3 Figure 3-5. Index of Changes in Sh ares of Transit Trips, Non-drivers, and 0-vehiele Households. 3-6

PAGE 38

3-7 j-e-# Non-drivers--# 0-vehicle Households -tr-# Transit Linked Trips g 125 I "' "' "' 100 -" ., c 75 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 Source: Table 3-6 3-6. ladex ofCbanga i n Numbers ofTnnsit Trips, Non-drivers, aod 0-vebiclc H ouse h olds. Changes in Trip Characteristics cited for the incr ease in speed of travel to work: While th e average commute has increased in distance the travel time to work has not shown corresponding increases (Table 37 ) Between I 983 and 1995 commu t ing trips grew 3 7 percent longer in miles while the travel time increased by only I 4 percent. This comparison is meaningfu.l because F HW A believes tha t work trip characteristics have not been sign ificantly impacted by the survey changes. This trend seem s to fly in the face of the reality of congested roads. Ther e are three reasons most often Tab.le 3-7. C hanges in Commut ing Chancteristics. Characteristics .1983 .1990 Average D istance in Miles 8.S 10. 6 Average Tim e in Minutes 182 19. 7 Avera ge Speed in MPH 28. 0 32.3 Sour: Figure I I FHWA (1997b ). the co ntinued decentra liza t ion of metropo litan areas; the expansion of the peak period because of flexibility in hours of work ; and the switch from carpoo.l and transit to sing.le occupant vehicle trips, which are usually more timtefficicn t for the individual worker, even though they may be Jess efficient for the overall transportatio n systems 1995 83 '95% Change 11.6 36.5 20.7 13. 7 33.6 20.0

PAGE 39

CHAPTER4 RESULTS INTRODUCTION This chapter presents findings from the research on eight perspectives of public transit in America: Public attitudes about public transit; A va i lability and proximity of public transit; Extent of transferring; Perceived characteristics of public tran sit trips (distance, traveltime, speed, and waiting time); Public transit's share of the travel market; Public transit's sub markets ; Propensity for transit use by people who perceive public transit to be available to them; and Public transit's market penetration. The focus is on public transit's market share, sub markets, propensity for transit use, and market penetration. The findings regarding public attitudes, availability, proximity, transferring, and trip characteristics help our understanding of these four issues. For more detailed statistics on market share, sub-m arkets, and propensity for transit use, the reader is referred to the appendices The rest of this chapter is divided into eig ht sections, one for each of the perspectives. PUBLIC ATTITUDES ABOUT TRANSIT Introduction Public attitudes reflect public perceptions of reality, which are often consid ere d to be important determinants of travel beha vio r Customer satisfaction is increasingly on the mind of transit agencies as they try to increase transit ridership and maintain transit's share of the overall travel market. A better 4-1 understanding of public attitudes enables the industry to stress to the public the positive aspects of public transit, and to work on improving aspects with which customers are not satisfied. Five types of attitud es are included: public transit users' attitudes about highway perfonnance ; people s attitudes about public transit in general; public transit users' reasons for using public transit; people's reasons for not using public transit to travel to work; and public transit users' attitudes toward problem areas in using public transit. Resul ts on each of these attitude types are presented separately below. The section ends with highlights of these results Highway Performance Figure 4-1 s h ows publi c attitudes about highway performance by their usual mode of travel for both work and non-work travel. People who usually use public transit feel that highway delays are much worse than do those people who usually dri ve. Only 3 1 perce nt of people who usually use publi c transit gave a rating of excellent or good for highway performance in tenns of time delays In contrast, 64 percent of people who usually drive gave a positive rating. Transit in General Table 4-1 and Figure 4-2 show public attitudes about transit in general. Both local bus and rail services were ra ted positively. Over 60 percent gave a combined rating of excellent or good for both bus and rail. However, m ore people rated rail in both extremes of the scale than they did for the bus mode. Specifically, 24 percent and 17 percent rated rail excellent and poor, respectively. In contrast, only 13 p e rcen t rated bus as excellent, while an identical percentage of respondents rated this mode as poor.

PAGE 40

! o&relkn torG::>od Fair or Poor J 64 31 36 Transit Users So\lf'QC: Tobie 4, FHVM Result$ are based on tbe oflhe 199S NPTS. The number of responses is out oh muionaJ sample size of OYer 4,00() adull$. Wci,S)tl$ were not Cftated tO e x :pand the s:a.mplt to the national population. Figure 4-1. Attitudes about Higbway Delays by Usual Mode of Transportation. Table 4-1. Overall Rating of Local Bus and Rail Senices. Rating Rail Bus Category Excellent 24% 13% Good 40 51 Fair 20 23 Poor 17 13 Total 100 1 00 $ollf()t : Tat>le 1. FHWA (1997e ) Res.ttlu ue based on the prtte:St ofthe J99 S NPTS In addition to highway trsVel and i ntercity tr.wel, respondetU$ were asked to r.rte local rail tnmi1 and bus snvtce as cxoellent, good, fair, Or poor in their area. The number of responses of a sample size of at lcas.1 1,3$0 peopl e WeishU were not &\ailable to upand the sample to the national popul.ation. Sl Rail Bu Figure 4-2. Overall Rating of Local Bus and Rail Services. Reasons for Using Transit 4-2 Table 4-2 shows the proportions of respondents wh.o eithe r agreed or strongly agreed with each of the nine reasons as to why they use public transit as their usual mode of travel for both work and non-worl< purposes. Over 80 percent of the respondents agreed that they use public transit because it is the most convenient way for them to get around. In contrast, only half as many agreed that they use transit because they can do something else in public transit vehicles or because it is faster than a private verucle. Between the two extremes, more people agreed that they use public transit because they do not have access to a car, it avoids the stress of driving on congested roads, or it is better for the environment About 60 per cent of the p eople agreed that they use public transit because they do not drive or do not like to drive or it avoids buy ing a car.

PAGE 41

Table 4-2. I Use Public Transit Because ... Reasons Agree or Strongly Agree I can do something else 41% lt is faster than a privat e vehicle 43 I don't drive or don'tlike to drive 60 A voids buying a car 65 It is better for the e n vironment 72 lt avoids stress of driving on 74 conges ted roads Do not bave access to a car 74 Costs less than driving 78 It is the most convenient way for me 82 Souro: : Table 9. FHWA (1997c ) Results a:e bastd on the pretest of the 1 995 NPTS. A question was asked i n the form: I use publi c ttansit beause:" followed b)llte i n lhe table with w h i tll the respondent eould agru or disagree Oil a five-po int scale, iBIudi ng d.iS3$J'," w unkn0\1o'1t/ "ag.ret, and "$UOnt,l y as,tee." The number of responses is out of a sample size of over 4,000 :adults. Weight$ were not created tO txp3tld the sample to the nl.!ional population Reasons for Not Using Transit Table4-3 showstbe results for wby people do not use public transit as their usual mode of transportation for commu ti ng. Overall. none of t he reasons is a dominant factor because none of them represen t a majority. The most significant reasons for not using public transit for travel to work include simple disHke of it, its unavailability at work, and its inconvenient schedules Almost 40 percent do not use public transit for travel to work because they simpl y do not like to use it. About 35 percent do not use public transit for travel to work because it is unavailable at work. A total of 24 percent do not use public transit because of its inconvenient schedules. Among the other reasons. few do not use public transit for travel to work because it is too they have access to a car, trips are short in distance, or public transit stops are too far from home. Relatively large proportions do not use public transit for travel to work because they need 4-3 their own vehicl e to do other things or public transit takes too much time. Table 4-3 I Do Not Use Public Transit to Travel to Work BecauseReasons Agree I don't like to use i t 39% It is not available at work 35 Its schedule is not conv e ni e nt 24 I need own vehicle to do other things 17 It takes too much time 14 It stops too far from home 7 I travel short distances 5 I have own car 2 It is too expensi ve I 1 hav e a company car 0 Source : Penon F ile. Weights were llSed to expand the sample. t O the national populatioo. Problem Areas in Using Transit Table 4-4 shows the results on perceived problem areas in using public transit by people who use public tranSit at l e ast once a month for all purpose s There is no strong consensus on big pr oblems. The problem that is perceived to be th e most serious has onl y a 29 percent share indicating that it is a "big problem. Overall, four of the eight problem areas have a majority indicating that it i s not a problem. These include "having access to a car when you need it," "cost of travel by public transit," "publ .ic transit available time of day needed," a n d "time and aggravation with transfer s The two problem areas with the lowest proportions indicating no problem are worry about crime on public transit" and "time spent on public transit." Transferring does not seem to be a serious problem relative to other problem areas Over the years, the t ime and aggravation involved i n transfers

PAGE 42

has been believed to be one of the primary problem areas for people using public transit. The results, however, indicate that "time and aggravation with transfers" is among those areas with the lowes t proporticms indicating a big problem. Transferring has the lowest proportion indicating that it is a big problem among all users combined In contrast, worrying about crime on public transit has a much larger proportion indicating this to be a big problem. However, the results on transferring need to be interpreted with care. As shown later in the section on transferring, the proportion of linked public transit trips involving transfers is small. As a result, many of those who responded to the question about problem areas in using public transit do not experience much transferring. They are less likely to be critical of transferring as a problem area, then, than those who have to transfer a lot. Furthermore, when a transi t network is sparse, there are fewer trips for which transfers will even present a reasonable option. The transferring problem" is then so big that possible trips are not even seriously consideredhence, no problem is acknowledged There are substantial differences in the perceptions of these problem areas between population groups such as women versus men, frequent users versus infrequent users and captive versus choice users (Table 4-5). Captivity is defined as those who are not licensed drivers or who live in households w i thout vehicles. With each of the pairs of population groups, the group that has a higher concentration of public transit users views each problem area as being a bigger problem than the other group in the same pair. The difference is most significant between captive and choice users. Summary This section has presented results on five types of public attitudes about public transit. Some of the highlights include: 4-4 People who usually use public transit feel that highway congestion is a more serious problem than do the peopl e who usually use other modes. Both local bus and rail services were rated positive ly, with over 60 percent giving a combined rating of excellent or good People do not use transit for commuting most likely because of their dislike of public tran.sit, because transit is unavailable at their work or because of transit's inconvenient schedules Least likely to h.ave been a factor was high cost, hving ccess to a car, or stop s being too far from their home People use transit most likely because it is the most convenient way for them to get around it costs less than driving. they do not have access to a ear, it avoids the stress of driving, or it is better for the environment. Last l ikely to have been factors are because they can do something else in a transit vehicle or because it is faster than a car The time and aggravation involved in transferring seem to be less of a problem than other issues, such as worrying about crime, the cost of travel, having access to a car when it is needed, and difficulty with crowding. People who rely on transit tend to view public transit more negatively than do others. For example, women, more frequent users, non licensed drivers, and people without household vehicles perceive public transit more negatively than men, less frequent users, licensed drivers, and people with household vehicles, respectively.

PAGE 43

4-5 Table 4-4. Perception o f Problem Areas in U sin g Public Tranit for All Purposes. P ercent Indicating Big, Small, or No Problem Problem Areas Big Small No Problem T ota l Problem Problem Worry with crime on public transit 29% 32% 39% 100% Time spent on public transit 25 34 4 1 100 Having access to a car when you need it 23 20 56 100 Difficulty with crowding or getting a seat 22 30 4 8 100 Cost of travel by public transit 21 27 52 100 Public tran sit availab l e time of day needed 20 2 9 5 1 100 Transi t stations and vehicles not clean 17 34 49 100 Time and aggra vation with transfers 1 6 30 54 100 Sour: Penon FUe. Table 4-5. Differences i n Percent Indicati ng Eac h Area as a Blg Problem by Gender, Frequency of Use, and Capti vity. Problem Areas Gender Frequency of Use Captivity Male Female Infrequent Frequent Choice Captiv e Worry with crime on public transit 20% 35% 28% 30"/o 20% 38% Time spent on public transit 22 27 22 27 21 29 Having access t o a car when you need i t 1 8 28 1 7 29 11 36 Difficulty with crowding or getting a seat 18 24 16 27 17 27 Cost of travel by public transit 18 24 14 27 16 27 Public transi t available time of day needed 19 21 1 9 21 16 24 Transit stations and vehicles not clean 14 19 1 0 23 12 22 Time and aggravation with transfers 1 6 1 6 15 17 14 18 $()(1rce: Pe110I'l File . frequent users are those U$t-publle uanslt at least two or more times a 'o't>eek i:n :z typical twOm<>nth period. Captive users are those: who either are not a lictnsc4 driver or live in households without vehicles. Choice users are those who ace licensed drivers and lh e in vehicle owning households,

PAGE 44

AVAILABIUTY AND PROXIMITY Introduction Availability and proximity of public transit are closely related. In the NPTS, availability measures a macro-level of transit being available, while proximity measures a micro-level of transit being available. Specifically, availability gives the proportion of people who perceive public transit to be available in the city or to\\n in which they Jive, while proximity gives the proportion of people who perceive that they Jive within a quarter mile of the nearest transit stop. It is important to point out that availability and proximity measured here are perceived and spatia) in nature. It is unclear how perceived proximity would compare with actual proximity, which is frequently measured by local transportation planning agencies and transit operators. On the other hand, neither availabiJity nor proximity measured here incorporates temporal features of public transit services, such as service frequency, daily service span, or whether weekend services are provided. Nationwide results are discu ssed first. Results on the effects of MSA scale and area density on availability and proximity are presented next, followed by results on the effects of persona l household, and land use characteristics on transit availability and proximity Nationwide Availability and Proximity About 60 percent of Americans perceive public transit to be available in the city or town in which they Jive and approximately half of Americans perceive themselves as living within a quaner mile of a transit stop. Effects of MSA Scale and Area Density Table 4-6 and Figure 4-3 show how transit availability varies with both MSA scale and area density. At the national level, the percent of people who perceive that public transit is avai lable in the city or town they live increases with the scaleofMSAs. It is only 20 percent for areas outside MSAs. It increases from 55 percent in MSAs with a population under 250,000, to 69 percent in MSAs with a population between 500,000 and I million, and to 79 percent in MSAs with a population of at least 3 million. Availability is similar across suburban areas, second cities, and urban areas but is substantially lower in rural areas and small towns. The proportion of the population perceiving public transit to be available is around 20 percent, 40 percent, 90 percent, 85 percent and I 00 percent in rural areas, small towns, suburban areast and urban areas, respectively. Availability varies little across different sizes of metropolitan areas for a given level of area density except for those areas outside MSAs. Availability between MSAs and outside MSAs differs most dramatically in suburban areas, where only 19 percent of people outside MSAs perceive public transit to be available, compared with approximately 90 percent within MSAs. On the other hand, availability between MSAs and outside MSAs is almost the same in urban areas at about I 00 percent. Table 4-7 and Figure 4 -4 show how transit proximity varies with both MSA scale and area density. At the national level, about 37 percent of people perceive that they live within a quarter mile of transit stops. This ranges between 42 percent to 46 percent for both small and medium sized MSAs and jumps to about 53 percent in the largest MSAs with a population of at least 3 million. The difference in transit proximity is much larger betw ee n suburban and urban areas than it is in transit availability. On the other hand, the difference in transit proxim ity is much smaller between less urbanized areas (rural areas and small towns) and more urbanized areas (suburbs, second cities, and urban areas) than it is in transit availability. As in the case of transit availability, transit proximity varies little acro ss MSAs of different scales. Effects of Personal, Household, and Land Use Characteristics Availability and proximity vary systematically across population groups and modes. Table 4-8 shows this variation. The first and second columns show the different types of characteristics and the population groups for the given characteristics The first block of columns shows availability by mode, i.e. the percent of population who perceive that each transit mode is available in the city or town in which they Jive. The second block of columns shows proximity, i.e., the percent of population who perceive that they live

PAGE 45

within a quarter mile of the nearest stop for each transit mode. In general, a smaller proportion of Americans perceiv e that they live within a quarter mile of transit stops than perceiv e that public transi t is available in the city or t own in which they live. Most of the population groups that are considered t o have high 4-7 concentrations of public transi t users show both high availability and close pro ximity, including non drivers, females, nonHispanics, people living in households with low income, people living in households without vehicles renters, people living in s ingle adul t househo l ds, and a rea s with high densities of housing, population or employmen t. Table 4-6. Per;:ent Population Perceiving Publi c Transit to be A vailable b y MSA Scale and Area Density. Area MSA Scale (Population in Thousand s ) Density Nation OutsideMSA Under250 250-499 500-999 I ,000 2 ,999 3 000+ Rural II% 24% 19% 20% 14% 25% 20% Small T own 29 43 4 7 43 43 37 40 Suburb 19 92 93 88 92 8 4 90 Second City 60 79 89 89 85 79 85 Urban 100 99 100 99 98 98 100 Na tion 20 55 64 69 76 79 6 3 S<>uroe: PtrsOt'l file oOutsideMSA oUnd cr25() g2SD-499 1,(100.2,999 .J,(J(J(};-1 100 '$. 80 -" J5 .!!. > < 60 -v.-= 40 20 J5 = "' 0 Nation Ruoll SmaUTov.n Suburb Second City Urban Area Density Source: Table 4-6 Figure 4-3. Perceived Availability by MSA Scale a n d Area Density

PAGE 46

4-8 Table 4-7. Percent Population Li'ing "ithiD Quarter Mile of Transit Stop by MSA Scale and Area Dens ity. MSA Scale (Population in Thousands) Area Den sity Outside Under250 250-499 500-999 I 000 2,999 3 ,000+ MSA Rural 25% 18% 25% 22% 1 7% 23% Small Town 4 1 24 2 1 25 22 23 Suburb 0 26 37 4 2 40 41 Seco nd City 51 59 54 47 52 49 Urban 0 23 83 72 68 72 Nation 37 44 42 43 46 53 S ooree: PC1SOn Fik. ioOutsideMSA oU.der250 .250-499.500-999.1,000-2,999 .3,000+ ------------------------n---20 0 Nation Rwal Small To"" suburo Second City IJJbsn Area Density Figure 4-4 Perceived Proximity b y MSA Sc ale and Area Density

PAGE 47

4-9 Table 4-8. Availab i lity and Proximity by Personal H o useh old, and Land Use Characteristics. Character istics Person Age License Status Gender. \Vofking Status Race Ethnic.ity Household Income V c .hicle Home Ov.nerShip Life Cycl e Housing Density (Uoirs pel" S quare Mile) Population l>Msily (Persons pel" Square Mile) Employment Dens ity (lobs pee Square Mile at Wort<) AU S u b -groups Under 18 18-64 65+ Dri\'er N on-Driver Male Femal e Full Time Part Time Not Working Retired White Black Others Hispanic Non-HiSDanic Under $15.000 $15 000 $49,99 9 S5o.oOO+ None O n e Two+ 0Ym.er Renter Sinsle -Adul t M ul ti-Adult U nder 5 0 5().25 0 250 999 1,000.1 ,999 2,000+ U nder 500 500.1,999 2,000-3 999 4 ,000. 9.999 10.000+ Under 50 S0-499 500. 1 .999 2,000-9 999 Househol d File and Person File. Bus 60 64 61 61 65 62 63 63 64 65 60 58 79 78 76 61 62 6 1 64 83 7 1 58 58 76 69 61 18 34 62 77 93 24 55 73 88 98 29 so 69 78 87 63 Availability Streetcar/! Commuter All Troll ey l E.te .. ated Train Rail 1 3 i 1 6 i I S i IS i 16 i 16 i IS i I S i 17: 18 i Bi zoi 21: l?i IS i 22 i 18 i Il l 20! 16: 14: 13; 19 i 17, IS i 21 i 12: 9 i 10 i 19: 17, 10; 10 i IS i 1 9 i 15 i IS l 17i 14 i 17! 16 i 38 i 42 i 42 i 37 i 49 i 40 i 42 i 4 1 1 37! 48; 32i 59 i 47; 43i 41 i 49: 41! 37: 7li 47 i 29 i 48' 39 i I 5 i 16 : 27 i 25 i 50 i 16 20' 29 i 26 i 65 i IS l 21 i 2S i 38 i 62: 41 i 69 65 65 67 6 3 66 66 66 68 62 65 71 55 62 6 5 66 61 62 72 55 64 70 70 61 63 67 54 79 69 73 63 67 74 68 71 59 57 7 4 70 68 61 66 60 64 61 61 6S 6 2 63 63 64 65 60 58 79 78 76 61 62 61 64 8 3 71 5 8 58 7 6 69 61 18 34 62 77 93 24 55 73 88 98 29 so 69 78 87 63 Proximity Bus ; Streetcar/ Commuter All l Trolley Elevated 1 Train i Rail l 47i 21 16i 48! 22 17! 53: 27 13l 46' 19 13i : : SSi 29 22i 47 i 49; 47 i 48 i 53: 52 i 43 i 68; 55 i 6 4 i 5 1 i 40 i 81 i 57 i 41i 2 0 i 2 1 i n! 4 4 i 65 i 20 i 29; 41 i 55 i 74 i 38 i 38 i 45 i so i 59 i 48 ; 22 23 20 22 26 28 IS 32 28 22 23 26 21 21 47 2 0 IS 17 28 32 20 II I 7 13 26 7 4 IS 16 31 41 10 14 20 29 23 16; 17! 1 6 i 19 : 19 : 13! 13 i 1 8 i 24 i 24 ; IS i 29 i 16 i 12! 34 i 23' 15 i 21 i 8i o! 2 7 [ 24 ; 10 ' s: 8! 12 i 23 i 1 7 i 6 6 5 5 7 5 6 s 6 7 s 4 10 7 7 5 8 6 4 13 7 3 9 9 5 5 0 3 3 8 2 2 3 5 9 4 4 3 7 7 6 47 48 53 46 55 48 so 47 48 53 52 43 68 55 56 48 64 52 40 82 57 41 42 64 61 46 20 20 31 44 66 20 29 4 1 ss 76 38 38 45 so 60 49

PAGE 48

Summary This section has presented results on the availability and proximity of public transit. Among the key findings are: Availability and prox1m1ty vary little across different sizes of metropolitan areas for a given level of area density except in the smallest metropolitan areas. Around 90 percent of people living in suburbs perceive public transit to be a vailable where they Jive and about40 pereent of them perceive that they live within a quarter mile of public transit. Availability is similar across suburban areas, second cities, and urban areas while proximity is much higher in urban areas than in second cities and suburban areas. In genera.!, a larger proportion of Americans perceive public transit to be available to them than live within a quarter mile of the nearest transit stop At the national level, two-thirds perceive public transit to be available, while abou t half perceive themselves to be Jiving within a quarter mile of the nearest transit stop. However, these two proportions are about the same for areas with very low density, for people J iving in households with low income, or for people living in zero-vehicle households Most groups considered to have high concentrations of public transit users show both high availability and close proximity : non drivers, female, nonWhites, Hispanics, people living in households with low income, people living in households without household vehicles, renters, people living in single-adult households, and areas with high density. TRANSFERRING Introduction Over the years, the time and aggravation involved in transfers have been believed to be one of the primary problem areas for people using public transit. 41 0 In mode choice models, the coefficients on transfer waiting time and the number of transfers often are several times greater than that of in-ve hicle travel time. Transferring is examined from two aspects: Distribution of li nked trips with respect to the number of transfers involved; and Percent of unlinked trips t hat are transfer trips The NPTS is the only nationwide data source that has information on transferring. Nationwide results are discussed first. Results of the effect ofMSA scale and area density on t he extent of transferring are presented next. Results of the e.ffeet of personal, household, and land use characteristics on transfeJTing are discussed lastly. Transferring Nationwide The extent of transferring is limited. At the national level over 79 percent of linked trips do not have transfers; eighteen percent involve one transfer; and about 3 percent involve two or more transfers (Table 4-9). In terms of unlinked trips, about 20 percent are t ransfer trips. Table 4-9. Nationwide Distribution ofUnked Transit Trips by Transfers. Transfers Distribution(%) Zero 79 One 18 Two or More 3 Sow.::e: Sesmcmed File. and Tta\'tl Day F i le Effects of MSA Scale and Area Density As would be expected, the extent of transferring varies by MSA scale and area density. Tables 4-10 and 4-11 show the distribution of linked transit trips with respect to the number of transfers for MSA s cale and area density, respectively.

PAGE 49

Table 410 Distribution of Liuked Transit Trips by Number of Transfers aDd MSA Scale. MSA Scale Percent by Number of Transfers (000) 0 I 2 + OutsideMSA 96 4 0 Under250 94 5 I 250-499 81 17 2 500 80 19 I I ,000-2,999 8 1 17 2 3 ,000+ 78 19 3 Source : Segmented File and Tr1;vel Day File. Table 4-11. Dis tribution o f Linked Transit Trips by Number of Transfers and Area Dens ity. Area Density Percent by Number of Transfers 0 I 2+ Rural 96 4 0 Small Town 94 4 0 Suburb 82 13 5 Second City 80 15 5 Urban 77 20 -, Source : Segmented File Md Tr3Vel Day File For areas outside MSA or for MSAs with a populatio n unde r 250 ,000, about 95 percent oflinked trips do not involve tran sfe rring There seems to be litt .le d i fference in the distribution among the medium sized catego r ies of MSAs: 80 percent with no transfers, 18 percent with one transfer, and 2 percent with two o r more transfers. Transferring occurs slightly more frequently in the largest MSAs: 78 percent with no transfers 19 percent with one transfer, and 3 percent with two or more transfers. Fo r rural areas or small towns, about 95 percent of linked transit trips involve tr a nsferring; about 4 4-11 percent involve one transfer; an d less than one perce nt involv e two or more transf e rs S uburb s and second cities are similar in the distribution of linked transit trips with respect to the number of transfers: about 81 percent with no transfers, 14 percent with one transfer, and S percent with two or more transfers. Transfers occur more frequently in urban areas: 77 percent without any transfers, 20 percent w ith one transfer, and 3 pe r cent with two or more ttansfers. Effects of Person al Hou se hold, and Land Use Characteristics The extent of transferring varies systematically across population groups withi n various personal household and land use characteristics Table 4-12 shows this variation. Specifically, the first column of the table shows the different types of cha r acteristics. The second column lists the population groups for the given characteristics The next three column s show the distribution of linked transit trips by the number of t ransfers. The las t column shows the percent of unlinked trips that are transfer trips Most population groups that are considered to have high concentrations of public transit users show a high proportion of their linked trips involving transfers. This is true for non-drivers, non W hites, Hispanics, people living in. low-income households p eople Jiving in hous eholds with low vehi cle ownership, and renters. Both the young and old h a ve smalle r proportions of their linked trips invo l ving transfers than does the rest of the population Full-time workers and people who are not working have highe r proportions of their link ed trips involving transfers t han do part-time workers or retirees. People living in single-adult households h a ve a slightly lower proportion of their linked trips involving transfers than do people living in multi-adult households Similar to the relationship between transferring and area density, the extent of transferring increases with higher le,els of housing or population density. S ummary This section has presented results on the extent of transferring in public transit Findings i nclude:

PAGE 50

Most linked trips do not involve transfers. At the national level, over 79 percent of linked trips do not have. transfers; eighteen perce.nt involve one transfer; and about 3 percent involve two or more transfers. In terms of unlinked trips, about 20 percent of all trips nationwide are transfer trips The extent of transferring varies with land use characteristics and geography. Higher proportions of linked trips involve transfers in areas with high density (housing, population, or employment) or large population. Beyond those areas with very low density or a small population, this distribution differs only somewhat. 4-12 Most population groups that are considered to have high concentrations of public transit u sers show a high proportion of their linked trips involving transfers This is true for non-drivers, nonWhites, Hispanics, people Jiving in low income households people living in househo lds with low vehicle ownership and renters. Both the young and old have smaller proportions of their linked trips involving transfers than does the rest oftbe population. Full -time workers and people who are not working have higher proportions of their linked trips involving transfers than do part-time workers or retirees. People living in single-adult households have a slightly lower proportion of their linked trips involving transfers than do people living in multi adult households.

PAGE 51

4-1 3 Table 4-12. Extent of Transferring by Persooal, Househo ld and Land Use Characteris t ics. Percent by Number of Transfers Transfer Trip<(%) Characteristics Pop ulation Groups Zero One Two or More Person A ge Under 18 S5 13 2 15 77 1 9 4 21 65+ S2 1 7 l 16 License Status Dri\'er 82 16 2 17 NonDriver 77 19 4 22 Gender Male 79 17 4 20 Female 79 18 3 20 Working Status Full Time 76 19 5 23 Part Time S3 14 3 17 Not Working 77 20 21 Retire 84 15 I 14 Race White 87 1 2 I 12 Black 73 21 6 25 Others 7 4 24 2 22 Ethnicity Hispanic 74 24 2 23 Non -Hisp anic so 16 4 19 Hou sehold Under $15,000 75 21 4 23 lnco.me Sl5,000 $49,999 so IS 2 IS $50,000 + 86 13 l 14 Vehicle Zero 75 21 4 22 Ownership One so 16 4 20 Two+ 85 12 3 14 Home Owner 81 15 4 19 Ownership Renter 78 19 3 21 Life Cyc l e Single Adult 80 18 2 1 8 Multi-Adult 78 17 5 21 Housing Under 50 93 7 0 7 Density (Units 50-250 92 7 I 8 per Square 250-999 88 8 4 14 Mile) 1,000-1,999 82 8 10 23 2 000+ 11 20 3 20 Population Under 500 92 7 I 8 Density 500-1,999 87 9 4 15 ( Persons per 2,000 3,999 87 9 4 1 4 Square Mile) 4 ,0009,999 77 19 4 22 10,000+ 77 20 3 21 Employmen t Under 50 100 0 0 0 Density (Jobs 50-499 62 24 14 34 per Square 500 999 79 17 4 21 Mile at work 2,000-9,999 73 20 7 26 s ites) 10,000+ 80 19 I 1 8 All 79 18 3 20 Source: Travel Day File, Setmen.led File, Person File, and Household File.

PAGE 52

TRIP CHARACTERISTICS Introduction Un d erstanding the characteristics of public transit trips is part of a richer understanding of public transit markets. This report examines five c haracteristics of public transit trips including trip distance, travel t ime (excluding waiting time), waiting time, travel speed (el
PAGE 53

4-15 Table 4-13. Average Public Transit Trip Cbaracteristics Nationwide by Transit Mode. Characteristics Bus Commuter Streetcar/ Subway / All Transit Train Trolley Elevated Rail Trip Distance in Mi les 11.7 24 3 3 6 10.0 12.4 Travel Ti.me i.n Minutes 37.5 50. 0 26. 2 38.6 38.8 Travel Speed in Miles per Hour 18.7 292 8.3 15.5 19.2 Waiting Time in Minutes 10 .8 9.1 6.3 7.4 9.8 Overall Time in Minutes 49.3 59.1 32 4 46.0 48.7 Overall Speed in Miles per Hour 14 .6 24.7 6.7 13 0 15.3 Sourc.e: Travel Day File. 1-e-Distribution __.Culllllative I 16 100 80 <: 12 <: " <> &! 60 &! <: 8 .!2 40 J:> ::0 c 4 20 E -.>2 ::0 0 () 0 0 M ,., 'f V> 'C .-.. "' 0 V> 0 V> 0 0 0 0 6 ' -"' M ... V> "' 0 "' M ... V> "' .-00 ' 0 0 "' "' 0 V> 0 V> 0 N N M ... ., Trip Distanc e in Miles Source:: Travel Day File. Figure 4-5. National Distribution of Linked Transit Trip Distance in Miles.

PAGE 54

1-e-Distn'butio n -+-O!Olllative 1 16 100 c ., 12 "-c .2 8 'S .&> c 4 -Ci 0 "' 0 -0 V'l Source: Day F i le V'l 0 -0 .,.. N Trip lure in M inutes (E>c1uding Waiting Tilm) Figure 4-6. National Distribution o f Travel Time for Lioked Transit Trips. c: 2 r; 40 c .2 -" .&> 20 --Ci Sou.rc.e: Travel Day F i l e 0 V'l \-eDistributi on -+-OIOlllative \ lure Waited for Main Mode in Minutes Figure 4-7. National Distributioo ofWaitiog T i me for Linked Transit Trips. + 100 80 60 40 20 0 6 "' 4-16 Z' 2 .!! -.2! e u

PAGE 55

4-17 l-eDistribution -+-01Trulative 1 tOO &:> -=:-<: 60 40 > o; "5 .20 E u 0 0 0 ... "' 0 "' "' "' "' 0 "' 0 .,., "' "' 0 0 .,., 0 .,., "' Trip Speed in Miles per Hour(E>I:Juding Waiting) Figure 4-8. National Distribution of Trip Speed of Linked Transit Trips. Effects of MSA Scale and Area Density F igure 4-9 shows public transit trip characteristics for selected MSA sizes: outside MSA, MSAs with a population under 250,000, MSAs with a population betwe e n 500 ,000 and I million, and MSAs with at least 3 million population Public transit trips outside MSAs are long in both distance and travel time. The average speeds for trips outside MSAs are unreasonably high however. Linked transit trips are simiJar between the medium-sized and the largest MSAs i n terms of distance, travel time waiting time, and average speed. Linked transi t trips in MSAs with a population under 250,000, however, are slightly longer in terms of distance but shorter in terms of travel time because of their higher speeds than those in larger MSAs Waiting time, on average is sim i lar across areas of different MSA scale Figure 4-10 shows trip characterist ics for selected levels of area density: rural areas, suburbs, and urban areas. On ave r age trip distance, travel time (excluding waiting time) and trip speeds all decrease with area density: linked tran s it trips are longest and fastest in rural areas, while they are shortest and slowest in urban areas. Waiting time, on average, increases with area densjty. It seems counter-intuitive that waiting time shows increases with area density. It seems counter-intuitive that waiting time shows no decrease with MSA scale and a slight increase with area density Transit services te n d to h ave higher frequencies in areas with a larger population or higher density than in a reas with a smalle r population o r lower density. It is believed that higher frequencies result 'in lower waiting times for transit users. However> it is conceivab1e -that transit users in areas with higher frequencies may not target their arrivals as well as those in a r eas with lower service frequencies When tranSit service is infrequent, users typically pay more attention to the schedule and time their access modes a ccording ly. Effects of Personal, Household, and Land Use Characteristics Transit trip characteris-tics vary systematically across modes and population groups with various persona l household, and land use characteristics. Table 4-1 4 shows this variation. Specifically the first column of the table show s the different types of

PAGE 56

characteristics. The second column lists the popu lation groups for each given characteristic. The final five blocks of columns show average trip distances average travel time, average waiting time, average speed (excluding waiting), and average overall speed ( inclu ding waiting). For each type of trip characteristic, averages are shown for bus, rail, and bus and ril combined. Popu latio n group s considered to have high concentrations of public transit users seem to make transit trips that are shorter in distance, shorter in travel time, lon ger in waiting time, and sl.ower speed. These include non-drivers, female persons, not working, non Whites, Hispanics people living in households with low income people Jiving in households with low vehicle ownership, renters, and single-adult households. Trip s made by persons under 18 years old tend to be the shortest in both distance and time and slowest among the three age groups. Trips made by persons 65 years or older tend to be the longest in both distance and time and fastes t among the age groups. As in the case of MSA scale and area density, waiting time shows a tendency to in crease with neighborhood housing density and population density. On the other hand, waiting time shows a decreasing relationship with employment density. This unique rela tionship between average waiting time and employment density may be explained by the following. While th e r elatio nships between MSA sc ale and other measures of density are for all persons and all transit trips, the relationship between waiting time and employment densi ty is for workers only. Workers, on average, make a larg e r proportion o f r e p eated trips than other people. People who make repeated trips may target their arrivals better than other people. Summary This section has presented results on selected characteristics of linked public transit trips. Some of the highlights include the following: At the national leve l, linked transit trips average 12 miles in distance, 39 minutes in traveltime (excluding waitiilg time), 19 miles per hour in travel speed (excluding waiting time) and 10 minutes in waiting time for the main mode. 4-18 At the national level, about 75 percent of linked transit trips are no more than 10 miles in length. About 55 percent are no more than 30 minutes long in duration. About 65 percent are no more than I 5 miles per hour in tenns of travel speed. And about 76 percent are no more than I 0 minutes in terms of waiting time f or the main mo de. Characteristics of linked transit trip s do not show systematic differences across MSA s cales However, they differ systematically across different levels of area density. Linked transit trips decrease in distance, travel time, and travel speed as area density in creases. Waiting time shows a slight increase with area density, which seem s to be counter intu i tiv e bec au se transit services tend to have higher frequencies in areas with higher density than in areas with lower density. It is often believed that higher frequencies result in lower waiting times for transit users. However, it is conceivable that transit users in areas with higher service frequencies may not target their arrivals as well as those transit users in are-as with lower service frequencies. Po pulatio n groups considered to have high concentration of public transit users seem to make transit trips that are shorter in distance, shorter in travel time, longer in waiting time, and slower These include non -dr ivers, female, not working, non \Vbites, Hispanics, people living in households witb low income, people living in households with low vehicle ownership, renters and single-adult households.

PAGE 57

4-19 j 0 Outside MSA 0 Under 250 500.999 3,000+ j .... 3$.7 10 4 9.3 9.8 9.8 Trip Distance in Miles Trn v el Time in Minutes Time Waited for Main Trip Speed in Miles per (& dudi.og: Waiting Mode i n Minutes Hour Time) Sour: Trav
PAGE 58

4 -20 Table 414. Cbaratterislic:s o f Linke d Transi t Trips by Persooal, Ho u sehold, and Land Use ChllratteTistics. Sub--groups D istance (Mil es) Time (Minutes, Waiti ng (Minutes) Speed (MPH, Over.!IISpeed tics Excluding Exduding (MPH) Waiti ng) Waiting) Bus i !WI !Tota l Bus Rail !Total Bus 1 Rail 1Total Bus i Rail !Total Bus 1 Rail lTotal Pcf'S()n Age U nd..-18 10 10! 1 0 33 37 i 34 II 9 II 17 16! 17 1 3 1 3 i 13 ' ' ' 18 64 II! 15 i 12 38! 42 39 II 8 10 17 2 1 18 13 17 i 15 12: 43: 40 18: 23: 65+ 20! 19 42 9 8 9 28 27 15 i 22 License Driver 16 16: 16 42! 4 3 i 42 8 7 8 23 22' 23 19: 19i 19 9 3S: 40 ' Status Non-Driver II i 9 3 6 12 9 II IS 17 i 16 II i 14i 12 Gend er Male 14 14 1 4 40! 42 41 10 8 9 21 2 1 i 21 16! 17i 11 ' ' 20! 13 11! Female 10 14 II 36! 41 37 II 8 10 17 18 14 Won.:ing Full Time 12 IS 13 40! 4 3 41 10 7 9 18 2 1 19 1 4 18! 16 15 36! ' ' Status Pan T i me 10 : 12 42 i 38 1 0 9 9 1 7 22! 1 9 14 i 18! 15 9 : 35 40 : 18: Ill Not Working 12 10 36 13 9 12 15 16 IS 12 42: 16! 24! 12l Retired 2 1 IIi 20 42 i 42 9 12 9 29 28 23 Race White 14 15 1 5 38! 42 40 8 7 8 23 21 i 22 18! lSi 18 13 : ' 19: 12: Black 10 i II 38 40 38 13 8 12 16 17 16! 13 ' 42 : 201 16! Others 9 i 14 II 33 37 II 10 II 15 17 12! 14 Ethn icity HiSpanic 7 llj 9 33! 41 36 1 3 II 12 14 16: IS 10! 13! II 38 42 21 ts! ts! Non-Hispanic 12 i 15 i 13 39 10 7 9 20 20 16 Household Under SIS,OOO 10 i 1 2 i 10 35 40 i 36 14 10 13 1 7 18! 1 7 12! IS! 13 come 12 u! ' ' $15,000$49,999 II 38 38 i 38 9 8 9 19 l7l 18 IS! 14! IS IS j 18 42 ' ' $50000+ 16 45 43 6 6 6 22 24! 23 19! 21! 20 Vehicl e None 7 i 10 i 8 33! 38 35 13 9 II 13 16 i 14 9! 13! 10 12 : 19! 16! Ownership One 1 4 i 12 39 i 4 3 i 4 0 II 8 10 18 19 1 4 IS ' ' 27! zs! Two+ 21 2 1 i 2 1 46! 48 i 46 6 6 6 28 28 24! 24 Home Owne r 18 i 19 18 43! 48 44 9 7 8 25 2 4 j 24 20! 21' 20 11! 3 4 39 JO! 1sl Ownership Renter 8 9 36 12 8 II 14 18! I S 12 Life Cycle Single-Adult 7 10 8 31 i 37 33 10 7 9 1 4 16 i IS Jl! 13! II MultiAdult 14 16 14 40! 43 41 II 8 10 20 22! 21 16: 18! 17 Housing U nder 50 26 5! 2 3 471 39 i 46 4 7 4 33 8: 30 31 i 7! 27 33 ss i 36l 20: 34! Density 50.250 15 1 9 37 i 41 6 4 6 2 4 28 2S (Units per 23 i 461 52 i 28: 26! ; 2S0 24i 24 48 8 7 8 30 30 2S: 25 Square M i le) 26 i 42 : ' 27l 1,000 1.999 19 i 20 50 i 44 12 9 11 27 31 28 2 1 22 9 : ' 40! 18! ISl 2000+ 1 2 10 35 37 II 8 1 0 14 16 II! 1 2 Population Under SOO 22! 22i 22 4 S i 54 i 47 5 6 s 30 24! 29 27! 22! 26 24 48 30! 2.1 27l Densicy S0().1,999 18 20 42! 43 9 s 8 26 27 23 (Persons per 22! 46! so! 26l 26! 2,000.3,999 2 4 i 23 47 9 7 8 31 30 23! 2S Square Mile) 20! 36 : 27! 14! 24, 4,()0().9,999 II 13 45 3 8 II 7 10 18 20 16 u! 35! ' ' 1 0 ,000 8 i 9 40 37 II 8 10 14 16 i IS 10 i 13! 1 2 Employment Unde< SO 25 i 57 i 26 43! 83 i 46 12 9 1 2 3S 4 1 : 34 28j 371 27 12 ' 33 i 21 19! Density ( l obs SQ-499 IIi 12 34' 34 8 4 8 21 21 17! 17 per Square Ill ' 52 ! 1 4 500.999 20 i 1 3 38 i 40 11 9 1 0 18 2 4 19 20 IS Mi leal 10! 14 : ' 22! 12l Worl<) 2 ,00().9 999 I I 39! 38 39 10 6 9 IS 17 19! 1 4 IS i ' ' 10000+ 8 i 12 3S i 43 i 40 9 7 8 1 4 21 18 II i 18! I S A ll 12 1 4 i 12 38 i 42 39 II 8 10 19 20! 19 IS i 17i 1 5 Source: Travel Day File Pe:rson File, and Household File.

PAGE 59

MARKET SHARES Introduction One important aspect of understanding transit markets is public transit's share of the overall travel market. This section presents selected statistics to show the influence of scale, density, and transit dependency on transit's market share. The market share of public transi t within a given population group answers the following question: What proportion of linked p erson trips by this population group is made on public transit relative to all other modes of passenger transportation? To be precise, let S be the percent market share of public transit within a particular population group, V 1 be the number of linked person trips for all purposes this population group makes on public transit, and V 0 be the number of linked person trips for all purposes this population group makes on all other modes. The following holds: S !OOV1/(VT+V0 ) It is important to point out that modal market shares here are defined by the actual mode used for individual trips rather than the usual mode used by a given person. The concept of the usual mode is used in the Census Journey-toWork data to derive modal splits for c omm uting. Effects of Dependency A number of population groups depend heavily on public transit, i.e., a large proportion of their trips are made on public transit (Table 4-15). At the national level, th e largest marke t shares for public transit are found to be people who use public transit two or more times a week and peopl e who live in households without vehicles People who use public transit two or more times a week make a quarter of all their person trips on publi c transit, while people who live in households without vehicles make over one fifth of all their person trips on public tran sit. Other population groups that depend highly on public transit include Blacks (7 percent), persons with an annual household income below $15,000 (5 percent), non licensed drivers (5 percent), and renters ( 4.6 percent). Transit dependency, however, is far from uniform across geographical areas. T he transit dependency of the seve n groups mentioned above is much higher in the largest MSAs or in urban areas but dramatically 4-21 lower in smaller areas or areas with lower density. The most frequent u s ers, persons w ithout household vehicles, Blacks, persons with low incom e non licensed drivers and rente rs make 27.5 percent, 28.9 percent, 11.4 percent, 11. 8 percent, 9.4 percent, and 8.4 percent of their trips on public transit, respectively, in t he largest MSAs. These same six group s make 30.4 percent, 31.5 percent, 1 6.0 percent J 7 .0 percen t 1 8.3 percent, and 13.0 percent of their trips on pu b li c transit, respectively, in urban areas However Bla cks, persons with low incom e non-licensed drivers, and renters in areas, areas outside MSAs, and the smallest MSAs ma ke no mor e than the national average percentage of t h eir trips on public transit. In the suburbs, these same four group s make 3.9 percent, 3.4 percent, 2.4 percent, and 2.3 percent of the ir trips on publi c transit, respectively. Effects of MSA Scale and Area Density The effects of area scale and density can be exam ined in two different ways. The effects of area scale and densi ty may b e examined either independently or simultan eously Independent Effects One way to see the effects of area scale or density is to examine how the degree of transit dependency depends on area sca le or area density in Table 4-15. Transit dependency increases dramatically from MSAs with a population between 500,000 to I million to the largest MSAs, and from suburbs to urban areas. To illustrate, consider persons without household vehicles and nonlicensed drivers. For persons without household vehicles, transit's market share jumps from 13.0 percent in MSAs with a population between 500,000 an d I million t o 28.9 percent in the lar g est MSAs and jumps from J 0.5 percent in the suburbs to 31.5 percent in urban areas. For n on-licensed drivers, transit market share jumps from 2.1 percent to 9.4 percent between MSAs with a population b etwe e n 500 ,000 to I million and the l argest MSAs; i t also jumps from 2.4 percent to 18.3 percent from suburbs to urban areas. Another way to see the sep arat e effects of area scale and area density is to examine how transit market share chang es with di fferen t levels of area scale or area density For example, transit market share increases from 0.2 p ercen t outside MSAs to 0.6

PAGE 60

percent in the smallest MSAs to 0 .9 percent in medium-sized MSAs, and to 3.8 percent to the largest MSAs. On the other hand transit market share increases from 0.2 percent in rural areas to 1.2 percent in t he suburbs and to 8.3 p ercent in urban areas. Simu l taneous Effects The simultaneous effects of area scale and density on transit market s hares are shown in Table 4-16 and Figure 4-11. The effects of area scale are much larger for areas with higher density than for areas with lower density. For example, transit market share for the suburbs is around 0.4 0.6 percent between the smallest to MSAs with a population o f I to 3 million, 4-22 and then increases to 1 6 percent in the largest MSAs. On the other hand, transit market share for urban areas jumps from less than one-tenth of a percent outside MSAs to almost I 0 percent in the largest MSAs Simi larly, the effect of area density is muc h greater for large r areas than smaller areas. For areas outside MSAs, the effects of area dens ity may even be negative on transit market share. In fact, transit market share is 0 2 percent in rural areas, 0 3 percent in small towns, 0.2 percent in second cities, and only 0.1 percent in urban areas. S i milarly, the effects of area scale may be minimal or even negative on transit market share for rural areas and small towns. T a ble 4 -15. Summary of Public Trans it Market Sbare (Pereent). Characteristics Nation MSA Scal e (I,OOOs) Area Density Oulside Umler 500.999 3,000+ Rur a l Subur b U r b an MSA 250 Use Transit Two or Mor e Times a 24 8 5.5 15.9 19. 8 27.5 2.8 17.1 30.5 Week in the Two Months before Interview Living in Zero-V e.hic.Je 21.0 1.8 9.6 13.0 28 .9 1.0 1 0.5 31.5 Hous:th olds Black 7 0 0.1 1.8 3.2 11.4 0.0 3 9 16. 0 Medical/Dental Trips 5 0 0 7 1.1 I. I 9 0 NA 2 1 21.4 Household Income< $15 ,000 5.0 0 3 1.6 2 2 11.8 0 1 3.4 17.0 Within One Block of transit Stop 5 0 0.8 1.2 2.3 8 0 0 1 2.0 10.7 NonLicensed Driver 4 9 0.6 1.4 2 7 9.4 0.4 2.4 18. 4 Renter 4.6 0.4 1.1 2.0 8.4 0 2 2 3 13.0 Living in 3 4 0.3 1.4 1.5 6 7 0 2 1.5 12.2 Households Hispani c 3.2 0.4 1.2 0.5 5.4 o s 1.0 8.7 No t Working in the Week before 3.0 0.3 0 8 1.6 6.0 0 2 1.1 12.4 Interview Female 2 0 0.2 0.5 1.1 4 1 0.2 1.2 9.2 Person Age 18 1.9 0.1 0.6 0.9 3.9 0 1 1.2 8.4 All 1.8 0 2 0 6 0.9 3 8 0.2 1.2 8 3 S<>wce: Appendix A. NA reprc.sents no .sampling.

PAGE 61

4 -23 Table 4-16. InJiuenct of MSA Scale aod Area Density oa Transit Market S hare. MSA Scale Area Den s ity (I ,OOOs) Rural Small Town Suburb Second City Urban Nation Outside MSA 0 2 0.3 NA 0 2 0.1 0.2 Under250 0.2 0.4 0.5 0.9 NA 0.6 250-499 0.1 0.1 0.4 1.1 N A 0.5 500-999 0.1 0.4 0.6 1.6 2.7 0 9 I 000-2,999 0.1 0.2 0 .6 1.5 3 1 1.0 3,000 + 0.1 0.4 1.6 1.4 9.7 3.8 Nation 0.2% 0.3% 1.2% 1.2% 8.3% 1.8% Source: 0a)' Mk NA il'ldicates thu crwit crips: wue io the 199J NPTS. 10 Town 8 Suburt> ---_ _: Second Ciry I 6 e Urban c
PAGE 62

Summary This section has presented selected results on public transit s share of the overall travel market. Overall, the results show overwhelming effects of area scale, area density, and transit dependency on transit market share. Some of the results include: Public transit in America captures 1.8 percent of all personal trips. This amounts to 6 666 million linked transit trips and 8,327 million unlinked transit trips The largest market shares are found to be comprised of people who use public transit two or more times a week and people who live in households without vehicles People who use public transit two or more times a week make a quarter of all their person trips on public transit, while people who live in households without vehicles make over one-fifth of all their person trips on public transit. Transit market share for these two groups remains relatively high at 17. 1 percent and 10.5 percent in the suburbs and 1 5.9 percent and 9.6 percent in the smallest MSAs (with a population under 250,000), respectively. Transit's market share drops dramatically between urban areas and suburban areas and between the largest MSAs (with at least 3 million in population) and medium-sized MSA s (with 500,000I million in population). Transit share falls from 8.3 percent in urban areas to 1.2 percent in suburbs and from 3.8 percent in the largest MSAs to 0.9 percent in medium-sized MSAs. The effects of area density on transit market share are much greater in larger MSAs than in smaller MSAs. Similarly, the effects of area scale on transit market share arc mu ch larger in areas with higher density than in areas with lower density. Public transit does not have a significantly large market share among those who live in close proximity to public transit. 4-24 SUB-MARKETS Introduction Another important aspect of understanding public transit markets is the proportion of public transit trips made by various population groups. A population group that make s a l arge share of its trips on public transit is only op e rationally significant when it captures a reasonably large proportion of all public transit trips. This section presents selec ted results on the distribution of public transit trips among various population groups, geographical areas, and between bus and rail mode s. Sub-Markets by Population Groups Table 41 7 presents the proportion of public transit trips made by each of the population groups listed in the first column for a given level of MSA scale or area density. The second column gives the size of public transit markets represented nationwide by each of the population groups in the first column. The next four columns give the size of public transit markets represented by each population group for a given MSA scale. The last three columns give public transit markets within each of these population groups for given lev els of area density. The last row gives the nationwide markets represented by different levels of MSA scales and different l evels of area density. For example, persons without household vehicles make half of all public transit trips in the largest MSAs, with the other half made by persons with hous ehold vehicles in the largest MSAs. Similarly, Blacks make 30 percent of all public transit trips in the suburbs, with the other 70 percent being made by other racial groups in the suburbs. The ranking of the population groups considered differs significantly between public transit's share of the overall travel market and the proport ion of transit trips captured by each popu lation group. At the national level, the most frequent users represent the largest market, capturing 84 percent of all public transit trips. Persons age 18-64 repr esent the second largest market, capturing almost three-quarters of all transit trips Following these groups are renters, p e rson s living within one block of a transit stop, females, drivers persons without household vehicles, Blacks, and persons with low

PAGE 63

4-25 incomes who capture 62 percent, 59 percent 57 percent, 56 percent, 47 percent, 44 pen:ent, and 32 percent ofal public transit trips, respectively Some of these sub-markets are relatively stable across different levels of M S A scale or area density while others change significantly. Dramatic changes are found among persons without vehicles and Black s. For example, Blacks make about half of public transit trips in the largest MSAs or in urban areas, while they make less than five percent of public transit trips in rural areas or outside MSAs Relatively small changes are found among the most mquent users, non-licensed drivers, and females. For example, non -licen sed drivers make 40 to 60 percent of all public transit trips across diffe rent geographical areas. characteristics. In suburbs, for example Whites make 58 percent of their transit trips by bus, versus 82 percent for Blacks. In metropolitan areas with at least 3 million people, people with househ old incomes over $50 ,00 0 make 43 percent of th eir tran sit trips by bus, ver sus 75 percent for people with hou se hold incomes under $15,000. Summary Almost 90 percent of transit trips nationwide are made in MSAs with a population of at least 1 million. On the other hand, two-thirds of transit trips are made in urban areas and another onesixth are made in suburbs. SubMarkets by Geographical Areas Urban areas capture 65.9 percent of all public transit trips (Table 4-18), of which 60.7 percent are eaplllred by urban areas in the largest MSAs and less than 4 5 percent are captured by urban areas of the second largest MSAs. Second cities capture 12.3 percent of all public transit trips, of which 4.5 percent occur in second cities in the largest MSAs and about 2 percent occur in second cities in each of the other categories ofMSAs. Suburb s capture 16 percent of all public transit trips, of which over 12 percent occu r in suburbs in the largest MSA s Small towns capture 4 percent of all public transit trips while rural areas capture only 2 percent of all public transit trips. In tenns of MSA scale the largest MSAs capture 79 percent of public transit tri ps Of this percentage, urban areas, suburbs, and second cities in the largest MSAs capture 60.7 percent 4.5 pen:eot, and 12.5 percent, respectively. MSA s with a population between I and 3 million only capture about 10 pen:ent of all public transit trips Of this percentage, urban areas, second cities, and suburbs capture 4.5 percent, 2.4 percent, and 2.4 percent, respectively. Most of the trips captured by the small MSAs are made in their second cities. Most trips captured outside MSAs are made in rural areas and small towns Sub-Markets by Mode Population groups repr esenting half of the transit market include: people who usc transit two or more times a week, person s age 18 to 64, renters, people who live within one block of a transit stop, females, and non-licensed drivers. Some of the sub-markets arc relatively stable across geographical areas. Examp les include frequent users and non-licensed drivers. People who use public transit two or more tjmes a week make 84 percent of all public transit trips nationwide This percentage remains relatively stable in all metropolitan areas (rega rdless of siz.e) and in urban areas. People who are not licensed to drive make 56 percc nt of all public transit trips nationwide This group s share of transit trips remains around 50 percent in rural areas and outside MSAs. Some of the sub-markets are relatively unstable across geographical areas. Examples include Blacks and people with no household veh ic les. Blacks make 44 percent of all public transit trips nationwide. This percentage drops to below five percent in rural areas and in areas outside MSAs. People who live in households without vehicl .es make 47 percent of all public transit trips nationwide. This percenta ge increases to 60 pen:ent in urban areas, but drops to about I 0 percent in rural areas, small towns, or suburban Buses capture 68 per cent of all public transit trips areas. in the nation (Table 4-19) This percentage varies across personal, household, and geographic

PAGE 64

4-26 Table 4-17. Summary of Public Transit Sub-Markets ( P ercent). Characteristics Nation MSA Scale (1,000) Density Outside Under 5 0 0 3.000+ Rural Subur b Uri> an MSA 2SO Use Transit T wo o r More Times 84 63 9 1 IW 85 60 n 87 a Wed: i n the Two Months before (ntcrview PtfSOn Age 74 39 74 68 76 41 77 76 Renter 62 32 41 53 66 14 41 71 Within One Block of Transit Stop 59 52 42 66 59 8 42 63 Female 51 53 39 64 56 51 53 58 Licensed Orivu 56 51 40 60 56 so 33 60 Livi.n.s in Zero--Vehicl e 47 18 25 35 so I I I I 60 Household s B lack 44 4 1 9 37 46 I 30 S l Houochold Income< $1 5,000 32 21 33 32 30 10 IS 36 Living in Single-Adult 31 21 40 26 29 14 18 35 Hou$Cholds Unemployed in the Week before-27 27 21 30 27 25 IS 29 Interview HiSpanic 17 10 13 6 19 17 8 21 All 100 3 3 4 79 2 16 66 Source: A.ppe:ndix D NA reprt$enU no satnpling, Tabl e 4-18. Public Transit S ub-Mark ets by MSA Scale aod Area Density. MSA Scale Area D e nsity (1,000s) Rural Small Town Suburb Second City Urban Total OutsideMSA 1 .4 1.0 NA 0.1 0.0 2 6 Under250 0.2 0.5 0.1 1.9 NA 2.7 250-499 0. 1 0 1 0.3 1.6 NA 2.0 500-999 0.0 0.5 0.9 1 9 0 8 4.1 1 000-2,999 0 1 0.4 2.4 2.4 4.4 9 8 3,000 + 0.1 1.3 12.5 4.5 60 7 79.0 Nat i on 1.9 3.7 16.2 12.3 65 9 100. 0 Source: Travel Da} Fil e . NA means no trips sample d i n the 1995 NPTS.

PAGE 65

4-27 Table4-l 9 P e r cent Transit T rips Made on Bus by Personal, Household, and Geographic Charact eristics Characte-Sub-groups MSA Sca l e (l,OOOs) Area Density ristics Nation OUtside Under 500 3.000+ Rural Suburb Urban MSA 250 . Person Age UndCT 18 85 100 100 100 80 100 85 81 ' ; ; i 18 63 98 95 98 55 87 62 57 i i ; 65+ 68 92 95 98 61 85 67 64 L icensure Orivcr 56 84 92 % 46 92 99 5 3 i i i Status i No nDriver 78 100 100 100 73 100 98 l 67 Gende.Male 62 89 92 99 53 86 59 56 i i i ' Female 73 95 100 98 67 85 74 69 . Working F u ll T ime 55 87 89 95 i 47 70 so 51 Status ; i i Part Time 70 100 100 100 63 99 79 63 i i No t Woridng 73 86 100 100 67 76 8 4 67 1 i i Retired 91 88 100 99 89 65 94 91 Raee White 63 92 98 100 51 85 58 56 i i i B l ack 77 100 1 0 0 100 n 100 82 73 i Others 60 100 78 100 54 100 78 i 5 2 Ethnicity Hispani c 62 97 100 98 97 100 91 54 i 1 Non-Hispanic 70 92 95 tOO 83 79 88 66 Under $ 1 S ,OOO 82 tOO tOO tOO 75 100 94 77 Income i i i i StS,000-$49,999 68 99 tOO 99 61 99 83 60 i i i $50,000+ so 58 94 90 43 60 46 4 5 Veh i c l e None 68 tOO tOO tOO 62 tOO 94 63 Ownership One 69 99 tOO 9 8 6t 98 67 64 i i Two+ 69 87 88 % 59 80 60 68 Home Owner 7t 89 92 97 62 83 63 6 9 Own-ers.bip j l Renter 66 tOO tOO tOO 60 tOO i 71 62 Life Cycle Sing l e-Adult 72 100 100 96 63 100 8 0 67 l 1 Mu l tiAduh 67 90 9 2 99 60 83 64 62 All 68 92 i 95 98 61 85 67 64 Souroe: Travel 03)' File, Person File, and Household F i l e

PAGE 66

PROPENSITY FOR TRANSIT USE I ntroduction The implications for transit planning, marketing, and operations can be very different with population groups that capture the same proportion of public transit trips b ut represent different shares in the population For example, Whites and Blacks make about the s ame proportion of public transit trips nationwide (around 43 percent) However, Whites r epresent about 76 percent of the population, while Blacks only represent about 16 percent of the population Such differences among population groups reflect differences in these groups propensity for transit use. The propens ity for transit use by a given population group measures its level of transit usage, taking into account the number of persons from this population group who perceive public transit to be available Equivalently, it measures the per capita use of public transit f or a given population group relative to the per capita use of public transit na ti onwide. It i s calculated by dividing the proportion of public transit trips a given population group makes by the proportion that group represents of all persons who perceiv e public transit to be available A few hypothetical examples may h elp understand the propensity for transit use by population groups who perce i ve public transit to be available. A value of 1.0 for a popul ation group would mean that persons in this group make as many public transit trips per person as the national average A value of 0.5 for the same population group would mean that persons in this group make half as many public transit trips as the national average Finally, a value of 2.5 would mean tha t persons in the group mak e two and a half times as many public transit trips as the national average. Only the number of persons who perceive public transit to be available is used in computing propensity for transit use because using all persons would result in an overestimation of the true levels of propensity f or transit use, in general. Furthermore using all persons in computing propensity for transit use would result in biases across population groups. Such biases occur because larg er proportions of certain groups perceive public transit to be available than other groups For example, about 83 percent of persons w ith out household vehicles perceive public transit to be 4-28 available, while only 58 percent of persons with two or more household vehicles pe r ceive public transit to be ava ilable Consequently, using all persons would underestimate the propensity for transit use by population groups that have a smaller proportion perceiving public transit to be available than other groups. In the first example discussed in t his section, the propensity for transit use by Whites would be underestimated, relativ e to that for Blacks Effects of Dependency Those population groups that most heavily depend on public transit tend to have higher levels of propensity for transit use (Table 4-20). At the national level, persons who live in households without vehicles have the highest propensity for transit use. In fact, persons without household vehicles ha ve a propensity of almost 6.0, meaning that they make 6 times as many public transit trips as the national average Other population groups that show high values of propensity include Blacks (2.7), persons with an annual household income below $15,000 (2.3) non-licensed drivers (2.0), and renters (2.0). The propensity for transit use among the most fre
PAGE 67

in rural areas. Even in the suburbs, renters and nonlicensed drivers make fewer public transit trips per capita than the national average. Effects of MSA Scale and Area Density As in the case with transit market share, the effects of area scale and density on propensity for transit use can aiso be examined at two levels. At one level one may examine the effects of area scale and density independently. At the other level, the effects of area scale and density may be examined simultaneously. Independent Effects One way to see the independent effects of area scale or area density is to examine how propensity for transit use by transit-dependent groups depends on area scale or area density io Table 4-20. Propensity for transit use increases between MSAs with a population between 500,000 to I million to the largest MSAs and from suburbs to urban areas. To illustrate, consider again persons without household vehicles and non-licensed drivers. For persons without household veh i cles, their propensity for transit use jumps from 3.2 in MSAs with a population between 500 000 and I million to 7 .2 in the largest MSAs, and jumps from 2.4 in suburbs to 7.8 in urban areas. For non-licensed drivers their propensity for transit use jumps from 1.1 in MSAs with a population between 500,000 to I million to 2.9 in the largest MSAs, and jumps from 0.8 in suburbs to 4.3 in urban areas. Another way to see the separate effects of area scale or area density is to examine how propensity for transit use c han ges with different levels of area scale or area density for all population groups combined. for example, propensity for transit use stays relatively stable around 0.4 through the medium-sized MSAs and increases to 1.6 in the largest MSAs. On the other hand, propensity for transit use increases from 0.4 in rural areas to 0.5 i n the suburbs and to 2.6 in urban areas Simultaneous Effects The simultaneous effects of area scale and density on propensity for transit use are shown in Table 4-21 and Figure 4-12. Outside rural areas or small towns, the effects of area scale is much larger for areas with higher density than for areas with lower 4-29 density. For example propensity for transit use for suburbs increases from 0.2 in the smallest MSAs, to 0.3 in the medium-sized MSAs, and to 0 7 in the largest MSAs. On the other hand, propensity for transit use for urban areas jumps from less than 0.1 outside MSAs to 3.0 in the largest MSAs. Similarly the effects of area density is much greater for larger areas than smaller areas within MSAs. Outside MSAs, the effects of area density may even be negative on propensity for transit use. In fact, propensity for transit use is 0.6 in rural areas, 0.4 in small towns, and drops below 0 .2 in suburbs second cities, and urban areas Similar1y the effects of area scale may be minimal or even negative on propensity for transit use for rural areas and small towns. Summary This section has presented selected results on propensity for transit use. Some of the highlights of the results include: People who live in households without vehicles have the largest propensity for transit use among the population groups considered. Nationwide, they make 6 times as many transit trips per capita as the national average. In urban areas or the largest MSAs (with a population of at least 3 million), they make around seven and a half times as many transit trips as the national average Their propensity for transit use remains relatively high even in suburbs (2.37), the smallest MSAs (2.88), or outside MSAs (1.77). Propensity for transit use drops dramatically between urban areas and suburbs and between the largest MSAs (with at least 3 million persons) and medium-sized MSAs (with 500,000-1 million persons). It falls from 2.6 in urban areas to 0.5 in suburbs and from 1.6 in the largest MSAs to 0.5 in medium-sized MSAs. People who live within one block of a transit stop do not have a significantly large propensity for transit use. In fact, their propensity is 1.7, ahoost the same as that of people in single-adult households. This may have implications to policies that encourage residential development near public transit stops

PAGE 68

4-30 Table 4-20. Summary of Propensity for Transit Use. Charactcristjcs Nation MSA Scale (I ,OOOs) Density Outside Under 50().999 3,000+ Rural Suburt> Urban MSA 250 Lhing in Zero-Vchic.le 5 9 1.8 2 9 3 2 1 .2 1.0 2 4 7.8 Households Black 2.1 0.4 0.9 1.2 3.6 0.1 1.4 4 5 Household Income < $1 s.ooo 2.3 o s 0.8 0.9 3.6 0.3 1.1 4 6 Renter 2 0 0.6 0.6 0.9 3.0 0.3 0 9 3 9 NonLicensed Driver 2.0 0 8 0.7 1.1 2.9 0.7 0 8 4.3 Use Transit Two or More Times a 1.9 0 5 1.4 1.6 2.0 0.2 1.3 2.2 Week in the Two Months before lnter.iew Withio One Block o f Transit Stop 1.7 0 3 o s 0.8 2.6 0.0 0.7 3.4 Living in S ingle-Adult 1.7 0.5 0.9 0 6 2 5 0 4 0 6 3.8 Households Hispanic 1.4 0 6 0 8 0.2 2.0 0.9 0.4 2 7 Unemployed in the Week before 1.4 0 5 0 4 0.7 2.1 0 4 0 4 3.3 Intervie w Person Age 1 8-64 1.1 0.2 0.4 0.5 1.8 0 3 0 .5 2.9 Female 1.1 OA 0.3 0.6 1.7 0 4 0.5 2.9 All 1.0 0 4 0 4 o s 1.6 0.4 0.5 2.6 Sour<:e: A ppendix C. NA represents oo samplin&. Tabl e 4-21. Influence ofl'wiSA Seale and Area Density on Propensity for Transit Use MSAScale Area Dens i ty (I,OOOs) Rural Small Town Suburb Second City Urban Total OutsideMSA 0.6 0.4 0.0 0. I 0.0 0.4 Uoder250 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.5 0.0 0.4 250-499 0.1 0 0 0.2 0.5 0.0 0.3 500-999 0.1 0 3 0.3 0.6 1.0 0.5 1 000-2,999 0 3 0.2 0.2 0.6 1.0 0 5 3,000 + 0 1 0.4 0.7 0.6 3 1 1.6 Nation 0.4 0.3 0.5 0 5 2.6 1.0 Source. : Tra11el Day File Pel'$0n File,

PAGE 69

4-31 3.5 3.0 o SmaU Town ') !--------____ __ --::> .Suburb -;;; 2.5 City---... c j!: 2.0 -0 1.5 >--;;; c 1.0 .. 0.5 0.0 Nation Outside MSA Under2SO 25()-499 I ,000-2,999 3,000 + MSA Scale (I ,OOOs) Sour ce. Table 4 21. Figure 4-12 Influence ofMSA Satle and Area Deosity on Propensity for Transit Use. MARKET PENETRATION Introduction The transit industry has had r elatively good national data on transit mode share, which is now 1.8 percent for all non-intercity person trips. What is Jess well known within the transit industry is an estimate of the share of the population that are users of transit on any regular basis. This share represents a potential constituency for trans it interests and a base market from which transit can build As transit increases its service to new destinations such as airports, sports stadiums, malls, and convention centers, as well as continues to expand into suburbs, it increases the exposure of new potential customers to transit services. A richer understanding of the exposure of the population to transit services can help in planning strategies for service delivery and marketing. The 1995 NPTS asked persons who said public transit is avai !able to them about their frequency of transit use during the two months before the i nterview This information is used to estimate two other data i tems. One is the number of users and their shar e in the general population in a typical two-month period. The other is the conversion factors that are measured in term s of the number oflinked and unlinked trips per user I nformation on transit p enetration and conversion factors can be used by local agencies to estimate the number of transit users in their area for a given period of time. Tables 4 -22 and 4 23 sb.ow such info rmation across various le vels of MSA scale and area density respectively. In each table, the botrom row shows the information at the national level. The first column lists the various levels ofMSA scale or area density The next two columns sb.ow the information about market penetration, presenting both the number of users and their share in the population. The last two c o Jumns show the information about conversion factors, p r esenting both linked trips per user and unlinked trips per user Results on market penetration and conversion factors are discussed separately below.

PAGE 70

Penetration Rate Nationwide, over 28 million pe ople use public transit one or more times during a typical two-month period (Table 4-22). This represents 11.6 percent of the population Public transit's market penetration varies significantly across geographical areas Across different levels of populat ion scale, transit's market penetration rate is 1.4 percent outside MSAs, 5.4 percent i n the smallest MSAs, 6.1 percent in MSAs with a popu lation between 25 0,000 and I million, 10. 0 percent in MS A s with a population between I and 3 million and 21.0 percent in the largest MSAs. The corresponding numbers of users are around 660,000 outside MSAs, a little over 1 million in areas wjth a population between 250,000 and I mill ion, over 4 million in MSAs with a population between I and 3 million, and almost 20 million in the largest MSAs. Across different levels of area d e nsity, transit's market penetration rate is 0 8 percent in rural areas, 2.7 percent in small towns, 12.5 perc ent in suburbs, 11.5 percent in second cites and 36.5 percent in urban areas. Th e corresponding number of users is 380,000 in rural areas, 1.4 million in small towns, 7.4 million in the suburb s, 4 .8 million in second cities, and 13. 8 million in urban areas 4-32 Conversion Factors At the national leve l people make about 17 linked trips per capita or equivalently 26 unlinked trips per capita duri ng a typical two-month period. These conversion factors typically in crease with the s cale of an MSA or the level of area density. For example the conversion factor in terms of un linked trips per user increases from 4.1 outside MSAs, to about 10.9 in MSAs with a population under 500,000 to about 16 in MS As with a population b etwee n 500,000 and 3 million, and to 31.2 in the larges t MSAs The increases in the conversion factors with area density is e ven more dramatic than the increases with MSA scale. Summary Nationally, over 28 million people use public transit in a typical two-month period. This number is much larger than the 6 million who use public transit at least once on a typical weekday (APT A, 1 997). I f both numbers are correct, the larg e diffe rence between them indicates high turnover rates among pubijc transit riders Th e large difference may also mean a large pool of infrequent users in a two-month period, most of whom do not use trans it on a given weekday. Table 4 -22. Penetration Rate and Conversion Factors for a Two-Month Period by MSA Scale. Market Penetration Conversion Factors MSAScale ( l,OOO s) N umber of Users Share of Linked Trips per Unlinked Trips per Population User User Outside MSA 663,115 1.4% 32 4.1 Under250 1 009,910 5 4% 9 0 10.9 25 0-499 1,048,253 6.1% 6 9 ll.5 500 999 1 ,277 ,698 6.4% 11.2 1 7.2 1,000-2,999 4 ,13 6,286 10.0% 10.6 16.1 3 ,000+ 19,929,540 21.0% 20.5 31.2 Nation 28,064,802 11.6% 17.2 26.2 Source: Pti'$On Fil e, Travel Day Fil e and Segmented Fil e.

PAGE 71

4-33 Table 4-23. Market Penetration and Conversion Factors for a Two-Montb Period by Area Density. Penetration Rate Conversion Factors Area Density N umber of U sers Share of Linked Trips per Unl inked Trips per Popu l ation User User Rural 380 067 Small Town 1,431 792 Suburb 7,391 188 Se<:ond City 4,827,054 Urban 13,828 ,863 Nation 28 064 ,799 Soul'(e: Person File, Travel Day File, and Scgmenltd File. SUMMARY This chapter has presented findings :from the 1 995 NPTS about public transit in Americ a from eight perspectives. Some of the highlights of the results include: Overall, the public is positive about public transit and i ts services. Over 60 percent of a sample of 4 76 people rated loca l bus services as being excellent or good. An equa l percent of a sample of212 persons rated l ocal rail services excellent or good Among eight problem areas related to using public transit services, the biggest problem bas only a 2 9 percent share of the population indicating that it is a big" problem. In addition, people do not use transit for commuti .ng most likely because of their dislike of public transit while people who use transit for all purposes most likely d o so because it is the most convenient way for them to get around. About 40 percent of Americans perceive that public transit is available in the city or town in which they live, while half perceive that they live within a quarter mile of the nearest transit stop. The extent of transferring is lo wer than expected. About 79 percent of all linked public transit trips 0.8% 1.4 1.4 2.7% 2.3 3.0 12.5% 10.4 15.0 11.5% 10.6 17.4 36.5% 25.1 3 7 .9 11.6% 17.2 26.2 do not involve transfers. About 18 percent of them involve one transfer. Only three percent involve two or more transfers. Some of the characteristics of linked public transit trips include: 12.4 miles in distance, 38.8 minutes of travel time, 9.8 minutes of waiting time, and an overall speed of 15.3 miles per hour. Some of the largest s ub-markets include: people who use transit two or more times a week (make 84 per<:ent of all public transit trip s ); renters (make 62 percent of all public transit trips); and persons who live in households without vehicles (make 47 percent of all public transi t trips) Public transit s marke t share and the propensity for transit use are highly dependent on the population scale of an area, the popul a tion density of an area, and dependency on public transit. Over 28 million people, or 11.6 p e rcent of the nation's popu l ation use public transit at least once in a typical twomonth period.

PAGE 72

CHN'TER5 IMPLICATIONS INTRODUCTIO N Ana lysis of the 1995 NPTS provides a wealth of info rmation for the tran sit planner and policy maker A careful revi ew will refine perspectives and hone the understanding of the reader regarding the characteris tics of the transit using popula tion As indicated earlier most of the informa t ion is restricted to an analys is of the 1995 data and, as such, does not provide trend analysis Subsequent materials may address trends in instances when it is believed that the different survey methodologies still will allow meaningful trend comparisons This chapter is arranged by perceived significance of the findings in the r eviewers' eyes. Thus, it does not parallel the earlier part of this report but rather syn thesi ze s the fmdin g into some hopefully useful insights abou t p ublic transiL TRANSIT USE VARIES DRAMATICALLY ACROSS CONTEXTS The 1995 NPTS data verifY the significan ce of the impact of various factors on transit use. Area density, frequency of usage aut o availability, driver's license status, and income are extremely powerful factors in understanding transit use To each individual that may be depen dent on transit, transit becomes a very important means of transportation; however, at the local level transit's significance in tbe transportation system varies dramatically depending on tbe contexL Transit captur e s a relatively large travel market in some of our l argest urban areas, like New York and C hicago, but becomes an insignificant component of the travel networks capacity in many of our suburban or sma ller urban areas 5 1 Clearly, aggregate data are interesting but most certainly not unifonn l y relevant in areas ac r oss th e country that are s ignificantl y different in terms of their travel deman d characteristics and travel supply networks. Thus, the levels of inv estment and planning attention paid to transit might legitimately vary significantly across contexts. Even in aggrega t e at the urban area level, the share of trips on transit can vary by more than an order of magnitude between urban areas Transit mode share in urban areas larger than 3 million persons is 3.8 percent, while for urban areas smaller than 250,000 it average s 0.6 pereent, and it i s 0.2 pereent outside metropolitan statis tical areas. Thus the range for markets objectives an d impacts of transit can vary significantly acro ss urban and non urban conte xts as well. The market for transit services is no t equal and the investments, services, and policy comm itments need not be the same either STRONGLY DEPENDENT ON C APTIVE TRAVELERS The transit market is str ongly shaped by the captive rider While the concept of captivity is variously interpreted, those with out licenses and those in uro-vehicle households conti nue to be a d ominant and critical transit market In fact. captivity defmed in this way captures almost 70 percent of all linked transit trips, while they represent only 26 pereent of the general population five years or older, 30 percent of those who pereeiv e public transit to be available, and 39 percent of those who use public transit at least once in a typic al two-month period. In the older metropolitan areas with rail services, captivity represents an even higher share of users. For example, captivity as defined above represents as high as 58

PAGE 73

percent of all unlinked transit trips in Chicago based on a customer satisfaction survey of CTA users in 1995 (Northwest Research Group, Inc. 1997) Furthermore, the trends in transit ridership have been tied to these segments and as they have declined over the years so has the s hare of travel on transit. The decline of the captive market, no doubt partially due to economic growth the changing age profile of the population> and increasing availability and affordability of automobiles has resulted in transit needing to replace lost riders with choice travelers While transit has made some headway in that area the consequence of declining transi t dependency has resulted in generally flat ridership levels for transit and declining mod e s har es. Tran sit has not thrived as a mode of choice. While this finding supports th e value of transit as a socia l investment that provides economic and quality of life benefits for captive users it also reinforces t he significant challenges that exist if transit is to become a more significant mover of people The ability to attract choice travelers will determine whether or not transit travel shares nationwide continue to decline or whether transit can become a more significant component of the transportation system in the future. Having acknowledged the importance of transit dependency to transit use and specifically the fact that households are major sources of transit consumers it should be noted that we appear to be near or at saturation with respect to auto ownership per licensed driver and auto ownership per household. If these trends are sustained near or at saturation, it may bode well for transit goi ng forward by suggesting that the decline of the transit dependent ranks may have stabilized. If this marl
PAGE 74

of transit trips do not involve a transfer between public transit vehicles 18 percent involve one transfer, and 3 percent involve two or more transfers. Not surprisingly, transferring is more common in larger, more urban, more transit intensive environments. This limited extent of transferring seems to be consistent with public anitudes. Transferring does not seem to be a big problem relative to other problem areas people face in using public transit. The results indicate that "time and aggravation with transfers i s among those areas with the lowest proportions indicating a big problem. In contrast, worrying about crime on public transit has a much larger proportion indicating this to be a big problem. However the transfer rate suggested by the 1 995 NPTS does seem to be low in the largest metropolitan areas. CUSTOMER SATISFACTION Customer satisfaction is increas i ngly on the mind of transit agencies as they try to increase transit ridership and maintain transit's share of the overall travel market. Overall, the public seems to be satisfied with local public transit in America. Whil e knowing that the public is happy with public transit is important knowing the reasons why people are using public transit is more interesting. The public has a strong consensus about why they use public transit in general. In orde r of significance, the most important reasons are: i t is the most convenient way for them, it costs less than driving, they do not have access to a car, it avoids the stress of driving on congested roads, it is bener for the environment, it avoids buying a car, they do not drive or do not like to drive, or it is faster than a private vehicle. The public however, does not have strong consensus about why they do not use public transit to travel to work. In order of s ignificance, the most important reasons are: they do not like to use it, it is unavailable at their work sites, transit s schedule is inconvenient, they need own vehicle to do other th ings, it takes too much time, transit stops too far from their homes or transit is too expensive. Additionally the users of public transit do not have stro ng consensus about which problems they experience are big problems The bigge st problems are: crime on public transit time spent on public S-3 transit, having access to a car when they need it, difficulty with crowding or getting a seat, cost of tra\el by public transit, time of day availability when they need to use it, transit stations and vehicles not being clean, and t ime and aggravation with transfers. The implications are clear The indu stry needs to stress to the public the positive aspects of public transit, whi1e it works on improving the negative aspects. ACCESS TO TRANSIT Approximately half o f Americans perceive t hemselves as living within a quarter mile of a transit stop. Yet, accessibility is more complex than knowing how close a home end of a trip is to transit. As other questi ons reveal, transi t service to the destination end, hours of service, and frequency of service all contribute to accessibility on transit. The NPTS reveals information about many of these aspects The more urban an area, the better transit access is. Not surprisingly, more transit dependent groups indicated that transit was more accessible. This might be expected due to both the tendency of these population segments to locate nearer transit and by the virtue of the fact that they arc probably better informed as to the availability of transit due to the fact that they are more likely to use it. Suburban non-users of transit could be oblivious to the fact that transit may actually run on nearby streets. TRANSIT USE PENETRATION The transit ind ustry has no good national data on the share of the population that are users of transit on any regular basis. The 1995 NPTS provid es a perspective that can help increase our understan ding of how broad the market of users of transit is Na tionwide, over 11.6 percent of the population used transit one or more times within the 60 days before the 199S NPTS interview. The percentage decreases to the 5-10 percent rang e in smalland medium-sized MSAs and outside urban areas but increases to over 20 percent in MSAs with at least 3 million population and in urban areas. This represents a potential constituency for transit interests and a base market from which transit can build. As transit increases i ts

PAGE 75

service to new destinations such as airports, sports stad iums malls and convention centers as well as continues to expand into suburbs, i t increases the exposure of n ew potent i al customers to tran s it services. A rich e r understanding of t he expo sure of the population to transit services can help in p lann ing stra te gies for service de li very and marketing. SUMMARY While this analysis provides a thorough l ook at transit issues in the context of th e 1 995 NPT S data set, there remains a great deal of add it iona l analysis ofthe NP TS data set that can shed li ght on transit use an d traveler behav i or. Specifically, additional r eview o f trend data will prov ide useful insight in unde rstanding the shifts in th e transit marke t The 1995 NPTS data set is now available at the following web site: www-cta.oml gov/npt s. 5-4

PAGE 76

R-1 REFERENC E S American Public Transit A ssocia tion (APTA) ( 1 992) Ame r icans in Transit : A Profil e of Public Transit Passengers. Washingt on, D.C.: The Association. APTA (1997),1997 APTA T r ansi t Fact Book. Was hingt on, D.C.: The Association. Bureau of the Census ( 1997), 1997 Statistical Abstroct of Statts. WashingtOn, D C.: U S Department of Commerce. C hasles River Associates (1997), Building Transi t Ridersh ip : An Explora tion of Transit's Market Share and the Public Polic ies that Influence It Report 27, Transit Cooperative Research Program, Transportation Rese arc h Boasd. Washington D.C. : National Academy Press. Fe deral Highway Adminis trati o n (FHW A) (1997a), 1 995 NPTS User Guide. WashingtOn D.C.: U.S. Department ofTransportation. FHWA (1997b), Our Nation's Travel: 1995 NPTS Early R t.suiiS Report Washington, D.C : U.S. Departtn ent o f T ransportation. FHWA (1997 c), Transponatlon User$ Views of Quality Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Transpo rtation. Federal Transit Administratio n (Ff A) (not dated), Data Tables for the 1995 National TratJSit Database Reporting Year. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Departme nt o f Transportation. Hu, Pa t ricia S ., and Jennif er Young (1992), Summary of 1'1'0\ltl Tre nds Washingt o n D.C.: FHWA, U.S. Dcpastment of Transportati on. Hu, Patricia S., and Jennifer Young (199 3), 1 990 NPTS Databoolc. Washington, D.C. : FHWA, U S Department of Transportation. Miller David R., and Kenneth Hodges (l99 4 ),A Populati on Density Approach ro Interpre t ing an Urb an-Rural Dimension into Small Area Llft.style Clusters. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Population A ss ociation of Americ a, Miami, F lorida, May 4-7 1994. Northw est Research Group, Inc. (1997) Cus tomer Satisfaction S urvey of Chicago Transit Authority Riders Rep o rt prepared for the Chicago Transit Authority, Chicago IL. Pisarski, Alan E (1992), Behavior Issues in the 90's Washington, D C.: FHWA, U.S. Department of T ransportation Ross, Catherine L and Anne E Dunning (1997), Land Use Transportation !nJeraction: An Examination of the 199J NPTS Data. Draft Paper presented a t the 1995 NPTS Symposium, Bethesda, Maryland Qc. t ober 29-31, 1997. Rosenbl oom, Sandra ( 1998), Transit Markets of the Futur e: 111e Chollenge of Change Report 28, Transit Coo perative Research Program Tr ansportation Research Board. Washington, D C.: Nation a l Academy Press.

PAGE 77

Appendix A MARKET SHARES This appendix presents statistics on public transit s market share of person trips within various population groups. Market sh ares are measured for linked person trips for all trip purposes. Popu lation groups are determined by demographic, socio economic or land use characteristics of residential and employment locations along with one of two geographic units: population size of metropolitan statistical area or urbanization classification. The market share of public transit with i n a give n population group answers the following question: What proportion o f linked person trips b y A I this population group is made on publi c trans .it r elative to all modes of passenger transportatio n ? To be prec ise let S be the percent market share of pu bli c transit within a parti cular population group, Vr be the numb e r of linked p erson trips for all purpo ses t h i s population group makes on public transit, and V0 be the number of linked person t rips for all purposes this p opulation group makes on all other modes The following hol ds : S = 100Vrf(Vr+V0 ) The statistics ar c presen t ed by demographic socio-economic, and land use characteristics. For a given characterist i c, public trans it's market share is show n in both tabular and graphic format first by MSA popu latio n categories and th en by urbanization class i fications.

PAGE 78

Table A-1. Public Transit Market Sbare by MSA Population and Urbanization. MSA Urbanization Population (I,OOOs) Rural Small Town Suburb Second City Urban Nation 0.18% 0.30% 1.16% 1.22% 8.26% OutsideMSA 0 2 1 0 .27 NA 0.18 0,07 Under250 0 .24 0.36 0.51 0.94 NA 2 5 0-499 0.08 0 05 0.39 1.11 NA 500 999 0 05 0.37 0.64 1.60 2.71 1,000-2 ,999 0.11 0 .23 0.61 1.46 3 1 0 3,000 + 0 .09 0 42 1.62 1.43 9.74 Source: Travel Day F ile. NA means no sampled trips. F igure A-1. Public Transit Market Share by MSA Population and U r bauizatioo. 10 '$. 8 "' 6 "" Cll .-: 4 c 2 0 Nation Soux:e: Table A I oRural oSmaUTown Suburb Second City Urban Outside Under 250 250-499 500-999 MSA MSA Popularion (I,OOOs) 1,0002,999 A-2 Tota l 1.81% 0.23 0 .62 0 .48 0.88 1.01 3.77 3,000 +

PAGE 79

Tabl e A-2. Public Transit Market Share by MSA Population and Person Age. MSA Popu l ation (I,OOOs) Person Age Under 18 18 to 6 4 65+ Total Nation l.S4% 1.88% 1.82% 1.81% OutsideMSA 0.39 0.13 0.55 0 23 Under250 0.51 0.64 0 .66 0.62 250-499 0.28 0.51 0.62 0.48 500-999 0 82 0 85 1.15 0.88 1 ,000-2,999 1.06 0.97 1.21 1.01 3,000 + 3.10 3.93 3.76 3.77 Source: Trsvel Day F i l e Figure A-2. Public Transit Market Share by MSA Population and Person Age. 4 ,..---------jOUnder 3 ., a ..c:: 2 "' .... -"' a [!::; 1 0 Sooroc: Tabl e A-2-. Nation to64 i 65+ I ---.. -Outside Under 250 250-499 500.999 1,000.2,999 3,000 + MSA MSA Population (1,000s) A-3

PAGE 80

Table A-3. Public Transit Market Share by Urbanization and Person Age. Urbanization Pe rsonAge Under 18 18 to 64 65 + Nation 1.54% 1.88% 1.82% Rural 0.34 0 10 0 33 Small Town 0 32 0 .26 0.57 Suburb 1.27 1.16 0.91 Second City 1.03 1.31 0.97 U r ban 7 63 8 35 8.53 Source; Tnwel Day fil e Fign r e A-3. Public Transit Market Sh a re b y Urba n ization and P erson Age. 10 8 ""' ;,<:: oUnder 8to64 65+ 1 ----....... __ .. !! "' 6 + --------------------------------1 -= "' 4 ;;; "' e 12 0 Nation Rural SmaBTown Suburb SecondCily Urbanization Sour: Table A. A 4 T otal 1.8 1 % 0.18 0.30 1.1 6 1.22 8.26 Urban

PAGE 81

Table A-4. Public Transit Market Share by Population and License Statu s. MSA Population (J,OOOs) License Status Driver Non-Driver Nation 1.01% 4.93% OutsideMSA 0.14 0.60 Under 250 0.45 1.36 250-499 0.16 1.78 500-999 0.43 2.73 1,000 2, 999 0.58 2.81 3,000 + 2.1 5 9.4 1 Source: Trti)'tl Day File. Figure A-4. Public Transit Market Sbare by l'tlSA Population and License Status. 10 '#. 8 e ., 6 -=
PAGE 82

Tabl e A-5. Public Transit Market Sbare by U rbanization and License Status. Urbanization License Status Driver Non Driver Total Nation 1.01% 4 93% 1.81% Rural 0. I I 0 44 0.18 Small Town 0.24 0 .55 0.30 Suburb 0.88 2 .41 1.16 Sec<>nd City 0.59 3.87 1.22 Urban 4.53 1 8.35 8.26 Source: Tra,el Day F i le Figure A-5. P ublic Transit Market Share by Urbanization and License Status. 20 T""'---------tD D river Non Driver I I 16 +---------------------------------------------I;? il;; !,.c Cl,) 12 8 4 0 Source: Table A-5. ---------------------.. ----------------------------.. -------------------------Nation Rural Small Town Suburb Second City Urban Urbani2ation A-6

PAGE 83

Table A-6. Public Transit Market Sbare b y MSA Popul ation and Gender. MSA Population (l,OOOs) Gender Male Female Total Nation 1.61% 2 0 1 % 1.81% OutsideMSA 0.2 2 0.23 0.23 Under250 0 .75 0.48 0.62 250 499 0.42 0 .54 0.48 500 999 0 64 1.11 0.88 1,000-2,999 0 .7 8 1.23 1.01 3 000 + 3 38 4 .14 3 .7 7 Source: Tme-1 Oa)' F ile. Figure A-6. Publi c Transit Markel Share by MSA Population and Gender. 5 4 oMaJe ----------"' c 3 2 I 0 Sowce : Tabl e A-6. Nation Outside Under 250 250-499 500-999 MSA MSA Population (l,OOOs) 1,0002,999 3,000+ A 7

PAGE 84

A 8 Table A-7. Public Transit Market Share by Urbanization and Gender. Urbanization Gender Mal e Femal e Total Nation 1.61% 2 01% 1.81% Rural 0 .17 0.18 0 .18 Small Town 0.30 0 .31 0.30 Suburb 1.10 1.21 1.16 Second City J.J3 1.31 1.22 Urban 7 .22 9.22 8.26 Souroe: ira.vcl Day File. Figure A 7. Public Transit Market Share by U rbanization and Gender. 8 __ ,.Female 6 ---------------1 4 2 0 -f-L-. Nation Rural SmaUTown Suburb Second City Uiban Urbanization Source: TableA-7.

PAGE 85

T able A-8. Public Transit M a r k e t Share b y M SA P opulation and Worki n g Stat u s. MSA Popula tion (I,OOOs) Working Status Du ring the Week Befo r e Interview Full Time Part Time Not Working Retired Nation 1.58% 1.92% 2.95% 1.62% Outsi d e MSA 0.08 0.24 0.30 0.46 Under250 0.55 0 .73 0.75 0.48 250 499 0 27 0.15 1.53 0.68 500-999 0 .64 1.06 1.61 0 .7 9 I 000,999 0 76 0 .97 1.59 1.23 3t000 + 3.39 4.06 5 .97 3.35 Source; PerSon File fonvorki1'18 Statu$ durlns,lhe week before i n(ctv iew and Tr.lvcl Day File.. Figure A-8. Public Trans it Marke t S hare b y M SA Popu lation and Working Status 6 5 ;:R 4 ..c 3 "' 2 "' e 1'I 0 -----oFuRTime .. ..... -1 0 Part Time ------i Not Retired -----______ .. ______ A-9 Total 1.81% 0 .23 0.62 0 48 0 .88 J.OJ 3.77 N ation Outside Under 250 500.999 MSA 1,000. 2/)99 3,000+ MSA Population (!,OOOs} Source: Table A

PAGE 86

A -10 Table A-9. Public Transit Market Share by Urbanization and Workin g Status. Urbanization Working Status During the Week Before Interview Full Time Part Time Not Working Retired Total Nation 1.58% 1.92% 2.95% 1.62% 1.81% Rura l 0.09 0.21 0.20 0 .19 0.18 Small Tow n 0 28 0.17 0.26 0.50 0.30 Suburb 1.18 1.23 1.12 0.79 1.16 Second City 0.94 1.33 2.30 0.86 1.22 Urban 7 .06 8.60 12.38 8.18 8.26 Source: Person File for working status during the week before i n tti"Yitw a.nd iravel Day File Figure A-9. Publi c Traosit Market Share by Urbaoizatio n and Worldng Status. 14 oFullTime 12 10 '$. 8 .c "' 6 ;;. 1ii 4 !0 Part Time : ------------.. ---+----------------------' Not __ Retired ----------------2 ------.------0 Nation Rural Small Town Suburb Second City Urban Urbanization Soun;e: Table A.

PAGE 87

Table A-10. Public Transit Market Share by MSA Population and Race. MSA Population ( 1 ,OOOs) Race White Black Asian Nation 0.94% 6.99% 2.96% Outsi d e MSA 0 25 0 .12 0 12 Under 250 0.47 1.82 1.69 250 499 0.28 1.68 NA 500-999 0 43 3.15 3 .59 1,000-2 999 0 .59 4.70 0.55 3,000 + 1.97 11.37 3.90 Source. : Travel Oay File. NA meansl'IO sampled uip.<;. Figure A-10 Public Transit Market Share by MSA Population and Race. 12 White oBJac k 9 Asian e ., ..c 6 (/) ---;;; 1ii 3 0 Nation OutsXle Under 250 250-499 500-999 MSA MSA Population (l,OOOs) Others 2 93% 0.00 1.13 1.10 1.15 0 63 5.30 1,0002,999 A-ll Total 1.81% 0 23 0.62 0 .48 0.88 1.01 3 77 3,000+

PAGE 88

T able All. Public Trans i t M a r ket Sbare b y Urbanizatio n and Race. Urbanization Race White B l a c k Asian Others Nation 0.94% 6.99% 2.96% 2.93% Rural 0.19 om NA 0.12 Sma ll Town 0.28 0 72 1.40 O.Q7 Suburb 0.89 3 92 0 67 0.95 Seco nd City 0 .76 3 .12 3 66 1.65 U rban 4 65 15 .97 6 .28 8 .89 So urc.e: Tra,et Day F i le NA mew no sampl e d trips. Fig ure All. Public Tran s i t Market Share by Urb anizati o n aod Race. 1 6 14 1 2 ;!!. 1 0 l e 8 6 "' c t: 4 2 0 SoW"Ct : Tabl e A-LL oWhite oBJack i ---AsJan Others -----------------------1------------------------------Nation Rural Small Town Suburb Second City Urbanization Al 2 T ota l 1.81 % 0.18 0.30 1.16 1.22 8.26 Urban

PAGE 89

A-13 Table A-12. Public Transit Market Share b y MSA Population a n d Etboi c ity. MSA Population (l,OOOs) Ethnicity Hispanic N on Hispanic Total N a tion 3.2 1 % 1.66% 1.81% Outside MSA 0.37 0 .21 0 23 Under250 1.17 0.58 0 62 250-499 1.18 0 .40 0 4 8 500 999 0.53 0.9 1 0 88 I ,0 00-2 ,999 0.66 1.04 1.01 3,000 + 5.43 3 5 1 3.77 S ouroe: Travel Day Fil e Figure A-12. Public Tra nsit Market Share by MSA Popul a ti o n and E t hnicit) 6 0 '0'
PAGE 90

A-14 Table A-13. PubUe Transit Market Share by Urbanization and Ethnioity. Urbanization Ethnicity Hispanic Non-Hispanic Total Nation 3.21 % 1.66% 1.81% Rural 0.46 0.16 0 .18 Small Town 0.15 0.31 0 30 Suburb 1.01 1.17 1.16 Second City 1.56 1.19 1.22 Urban 8.71 8 .18 8.26 Souroe: Travtl Da) File. Figure A-13. Public Transit Market Share by Urbanization and Etbnioity 10 .--------IOHispanic ,....._ 8 Non-Hispanic "' .c {I) 6 .. -------4 -"' \r= !2 0 Naoon Rural Small Town Suburb Second City Urban Urbanization Souroe: Table A-13.

PAGE 91

Table A 14. Public Transit Marke t Share by MSA Population and Household Income. MSA Population Household Income (l,OOOs) Under $ 15,000 $15 ,000 $49,999 $50,000 + Total Nation 4.98% 1.57% 1.07% 1.81% OutsideMSA 0.30 0.24 0.16 0.23 Under250 1.56 0.45 0.49 0.62 25 0-499 2.17 0.19 0 17 0.48 500 999 2.19 0 .8 6 0 .34 0 .88 1 ,000-2,999 5.37 0.67 0.46 1.0 1 3,000 + I 1.7 5 4.0 3 1.9 4 3.77 S<>urce: Travel l>a)' File. Figure A-14. Public Transit Market Share by MSA P o pulation aud Househol d Income. 12 ;;; 3 0 N ati o n SU1t: T
PAGE 92

A1 6 Table A-15. Public Transit M a rket Sbare by U rbanization a n d Household I ncome. Urbanization Household In come Unde r $15,000 $15,000$ 49,999 $50 000 + Total Nation 4.98% 1.57% 1.07% 1.8 1 % Rural 0. 1 2 0 14 0.24 0.1 8 Small Town 0.46 031 0 .26 0.30 Suburb 3.40 0 97 0.96 1.16 Second City 3.3 1 0.82 0.74 ).22 Urban 1 7 .00 7 83 4.27 8.26 Sowce : Tra\'el Day f ile F i gure A-15 Public Transit Market Sbare b y U r banization and Household Income I 18 I 16 -r---------.-.J 0 Under $15,000 !------------, $15,000-S49,999 ------I 14 12 I<> 1 ::;; 10 !i5l 8 ;;; 6 !4 ___________ ___ ,.___ ------------------------. ____ ., ______ __ _ _____ ... --I 2 0 Nation Rural SmaHTown Suburb Second City Urban Urbanization So uroc. : Tabl e A -15.

PAGE 93

A-17 Table A-16. Public Transit Market S hare by MSA Population and Vehic l e Ownership. MSA Population Vehicle Ownership (l,OOOs) ZeroVehic l e One -Vehicl e Mu.lti-Ve.hicle To t al Households Households Households Nation 20.97% 2.39% 0.55% 1.81% Outs ideMSA 1.76 0.31 0.16 0.23 Vnder250 9.56 0 89 0.33 0.62 250499 7.61 0 43 0.1 6 0.48 500-999 12.79 1.7 6 0 23 0.88 1, 000-2,999 14 .29 1.23 0 37 1.01 3,000 + 28.86 4.50 1.09 3.77 Source: Tra,eJ Day f ile. Figure A-16. Public Transit Market Share b y MSA Population and Vehicle Ownership. 30 I 0 ZeroVehicle Households -25 --- OneVehicle Households ,...._ -:::!'! 20 MultiVehicle Households ------. -"' ..c IS --C/) ----., 10 r-1--5 -.l: 0 LIL 11. ... Nation Outside Under250 25()..499 500-999 !,()()(}. 3,000+ MSA 2,999 MSA Population (l,OOOs) Source: Table Al6.

PAGE 94

Table A-17. Public Transit Market Share b y Urb aniza t io n and Veh icle Ownership. Urbanization Vehicle Ownership Zero Vehicle One-Vehicle Multi Vehicle Households Households Households Nation 20.97% 2 .39% 0.55% Rural 0.97 0 22 0 .15 Small Town 2.01 0.33 0.26 Suburb 10.46 2.21 0.7 1 Second City 12.39 1.34 0.47 U r ban 31.48 6.74 1.87 $()urce: Tta\'tl Day File. Figure A-17. Public Transit Market Share by Urbanization and Vehicle Owners hip. 35 30 '0' '-" 25 <> 1<1 20 .c rn 15 -;;; " w ,... 10 ------0 lew-Vehicle Househokls --- One-Vehicle Househokls 1---------1 Multi-Vehicle Househokls ---------5 ______ --. -----------1 0 Nation Rural SrnaUTown Suburb Second City Urbani:zation Souroe: Tabli; A-17. A-18 Total !.81% 0. 1 8 0.30 1.16 1.22 8.26 Urban

PAGE 95

A-19 Table A-18. Public Transit Market Share by MSA Population and Home Ownership. MSA Population (l,OOOs) Home Ownership HomeOwner Renter Total Nation 0.90% 4.57% 1.81% Outside MSA 0.1 9 0.39 0.2 3 Under250 0.48 1.07 0.62 250 499 0.28 1.18 0.48 500 0.53 1.9 5 0 .88 1 000 2,999 0. 60 2 35 1.01 3 000 + 1.82 8 37 3.77 Source: Househol d File for home ownership and Travel Day F ile. Figure A-18. Public Transit Market Share by MSA Population and Home Ownership. 9 oHomeOwner Renter 6 ---.. -0 "' ..c "' ;;; 3 c --0 Nation Outside Under 250 250-499 500-999 1,000-2,999 3,000 + MSA MSA Population (I,OOOs)

PAGE 96

A-20 Table A-19. Public Transit Market Share by Urbanization and Home Ownership. Urbanization Home Ownership HomeOwner Renter Total Nation 0 90% 4.5 7% 1.81% Rural 0.18 0.18 0.18 Small Town 0.26 0.49 0 .30 Suburb 0.87 2.26 1.16 Second City 0 7 3 2.23 1.22 Urban 4 30 13.03 8.26 Souroe: HouseMi d Filt for home ownership and Tr,JVtl Oay File. Figure A-19. Public Transit Market Sbare by Urbanization and Home Ownership. 14 12 Renter 10 .. -----"' -8 en 6 -"' c .. .... 4 2 0 Nation Rural SmaDTown Suburb Second City Urban Urbanization

PAGE 97

A -21 Tabl e A-2 0 P u b lic Trausit Market Sbare by MSA Populatio n and Lif e Cycl e MSA Popu l ation L i fe Cycle (l,OOOs) Single-Adult Multi Adult Total Househo lds Households N ation 3.44% 1.50% 1.81% Outside MSA 0.32 0.21 0. 23 Under250 1 .40 0.45 0 62 250 499 0.60 0.46 0.48 500-999 1.4 9 0 77 0. 88 I ,000.2 999 2 .73 0. 66 1.01 3,000 + 6.70 3 .19 3 77 Source: Trav tl Day File. Figure A-20. Publ ic Trans i t Market Sha re by MSA P o pul atio u a u d Life C ycle. 8 ,------iluSingle-AduhHouseholds 1----------, Muhi-Aduh Households ';f. 6 e ., ..<::
PAGE 98

A 22 T able A-21. P ublic Trans i t Market Share b y Urb anization a n d Life Cycle. Urbanization L ife Cycle Single Adult Mulli Adult Total Households Households Nat ion 3.44% 1.50% 1.81% Rural 0.20 0.17 0 18 SmaUTown 0.35 0.29 0.30 Sub urb 1.49 1.10 1.16 Second City 1.80 1.07 1.22 Urban 12.19 7 .03 8 2 6 Sour : Travel Day File. Figure A 21. P u blic Trans it Market S hare by Urba n izat io n and Life Cy cl e. 14 D Single-Adult Hous ehokls 12 -!----------- MultiAdult Households ---10 ., 8 ll'3 ..c C/l 6 -., c 4 ,!l ----------------+ ------------.. ----.. -------. -' ----------------------------------2 0 Nation Rural SmaDTown Suburb Second City Urban Urbanization Sou.ret: Tab!c.A-21.

PAGE 99

A-23 Table A-22 .. Public Transit Market Sbare by MSA Population and Housiug Deosity. MSA Housing Density in Units per Squ a re Mile Population (I,OOOs) Under 50 50-249 250-999 1 ,000-1,999 2,000 + Tota l Nation 0.19% 0 .30% 0 67% 1.00% 4 .78% 1.81% OutsideMSA 0. 1 8 0 .18 0 .37 0 20 0. 5 0 0.23 Under250 0 .11 0 .24 0.71 0.81 1.12 0.62 250-499 0 .13 0 .18 0.25 0.67 1.11 0.48 500-999 0.37 0.23 0.49 0.63 2.03 0.88 1 ,000-2,999 0.22 0.18 0.$3 0.66 2.20 !.OJ 3,000 + 0.28 0 .61 1.03 1.57 6.82 3.77 Source: Travel Day File Housi n g densit)', units/square mite, i s for block g.roups at !wme locations, Figure A-22. P ubl ic Transit Market Sbare by MSA Population and H ousing Density. 8 r---------;0 os0-249 6 .. -.. ------, 250-999 --.. -----.. ---........ _ "" 4 Ul f!: 2 0 Nation Table Al2. .1,000-1 ..... .. 2,000 + 1--.. -Outside U nder 250 250-499 500-999 1,000-2,999 3,000 + MSA MSA Population (I,OOOs)

PAGE 100

A-24 Table A-23. Publ ic Transit Market Share by Urbanization and Housing Density. Urbanization Housing Density in Units per Square Mi l e Under 50 50-249 250-999 I ,000 1 ,999 2,000 + Total !Nation 0.19% 0.30% 0 67% 1.00% 4 .78% 1.81% !Rural 0.14 0.17 0 .66 N A NA 0.18 SmaUTown 0.36 0.25 0.3 1 0.20 0.67 0 30 Suburb 0.02 0.80 0.84 1.21 1.4 6 1.16 Second City 0 .38 0.47 0.90 0.92 1.8 1 1.22 Urban 7.95 5.81 1.61 2 15 9.14 8.26 Souree: Tra\'el Day Flit Housing density, uniiSfsquare mile., is for block groups at Mme locations. NA mms no $8tnpled trips. Figure A 23. Public Transit Market Share by Urbanization and Housing Density 1 0 9 8 '0' 7 ., 6 .. .<: "' 5 "' 4 "' c 3 '" 2 I 0 Nation Souroe: Table A-23. 1,000-J 2,000 + Small Town _____ .. ___ -------- ------------1 Suburb Second City Uban U:banization

PAGE 101

A Table A-24. Public TraDSit Market Share by MSA Population and Population Density. MSA Population Density in Persons per Square Mile Population (I,OOOs) Under 500 500,999 2,000-4 0001 0,000 + Total 3,999 9,999 Nation 0.21% 0.58% 0 .99% 1.57% 9.69% 1.81% OutsideMSA 0.1& 0.39 0.20 0.37 0.33 0.23 Under250 0.1 g 0.63 1.01 0 .&9 0.84 0.62 250-499 0.16 0.08 0.79 0.90 1.25 0.48 500-999 0 .16 0.59 0.61 1.31 4.30 0.88 I ,000-2,999 0.23 0 26 0.83 1.40 3.89 1.01 3 ,000 + 0.40 0 .9 7 1.49 2.05 11.22 3 .77 Souroc: T'ta\'cl Day F ile. Populatfon dcnsily. pers<)11SI$quare mtlc, js for bloc:k borne I<>C:uions. Figure A -24. Public Transit Market Share by MSA Population and Population Density. 12 oUnder 500 0 500-1,999 9 2,000-3,999 ----.. .. e 4,000-9,999 .2 (/) 6 10,000 + ;;; c ... w ..... 3 0 Nation Outside U nder250 250-499 500-999 1,000-3,000+ MSA 2,999 MSA Population (1,000s) Source. : Table A-24.

PAGE 102

A-26 Table A-25. Public Transit Market Sbare by Urbanization and Population Density. Urbanization Population Density in Persons per Square Mile Under 500 5001 ,999 2,000-3,999 4,000-9,999 10, 000 + Total Nation 0.21% 0.58% 0 99% 1.57% 9.69% 1.81% Rural 0 .14 0.60 NA NA NA 0.18 Small Town 0.21 0.35 0 29 0.54 0.09 0.30 Suburb 0.76 0 .64 1.21 1.23 2.33 1.16 Second City 0.53 0.88 1.06 1.23 3.24 1.22 Urban 6.19 2.85 1.96 3.17 12.50 8 .26 Source: Tr.1vel Day F ile. Population density, persons/square m il e for bloct groups at hom<: locations. NA means no sampled trips. Figure A-25. Public Transit Market Sbare by Urbanization and Population Density. 14 12 0 ---0 500-1,999 "#. 10 e 8 I.e 10,000 + "' ::: 6 4 2 0 Nation Rural Small Town Suburb Second City Urban Urbanization Source: Table A -2 5

PAGE 103

A-27 Tabl e Al6. P u b lic Transi t Market Sb are by MSA P opulation and Empl o ymen t Density. MSA Popu l ation Work Site Employment Dens ity in Jobs per Square Mile (I,OOOs) Under 50 50499 500-1,999 2 000 10,000 + Total 9 ,999 Nation 0 26% 0 32% 0.74% 1.60% 7.49% 1.8 1 % OutsideMSA 0 .21 0 06 0. I 6 0. 1 0 0 24 0 .23 Under250 0 .24 0 62 0.99 0 .02 1.06 0.62 2 50-499 0 .00 0.00 0 IS 0.10 0 74 0.48 500-999 0 .00 0.1 4 0 .70 0.35 3 63 0.88 1 000-2 ,999 0.18 0.16 0.49 0.84 2.44 1.01 3 000 + 0.98 0.75 1.16 2.72 I 1.35 3 77 Source: Person fil e for jo b densi1)' and Travel Day Fil e Employment dei\S.it)', jobs/square mile) is for census tracks aJ work locacions. Figure A-26. Public Transi t Market Share by MSA P o pulation a nd Employmen t Density 12 e., 9 !! .. .<: 6 til ;;; c .. t3 0 Nation Source. : Table A 26 oUnderSO os0-499 500-1,999 .10, 000 + OutSide Under 250 250-499 500-999 MSA MSA Populati<:m (I,OOOs) 1,0002 ,999 3,000 +

PAGE 104

A -2 8 Table A-27. Public T nonsit Markel Share by Urbanization and Employment Density. Urbanization Work Site Employment Density in Jobs per Square Mile Unde r 50 50-499 500-1,999 2,000 10,000 + Total 9,999 Nation 0.26% 0.32% 0.74% 1.60% 7 .49% 1.81% Rural 0.14 0 07 0.12 0.33 0.21 0 .18 Small Town 0 .16 0.11 0.32 0.34 1.59 0.30 Suburb 1.28 0.40 0.75 0.60 4.39 Ll6 Second City 0 .51 0.67 0.74 0.52 3.64 1.22 Urban 3.40 2.34 2.43 5.26 14.02 8.26 Source: Fik for employment density and Tra\el Day file Employment dc:nsit),jobsfsquare mile, is for census tracks at V.'Otk locations. Figure A -27. Public Transit Markel Sbare by Urbanization and Employment Density. IS '0" 12 ";;<: !! 9 .. .:: "' 10.000 + -6 ;;; It3 0 Nation Rural Small Town Sub urb Second City Urban Urbanization Source. : A-21.

PAGE 105

A-29 Table A-28. Public Transi t Market Share by MSA Population and Proximity to Transit S t ops. MSA Proximity o f Residence to Transit Stops Population Within One One Block Quarter Half Mi l e(l,OOOs) Beyond Total B l ock Quarter MileOne Mile One Mile Mil e Half Mile Nat ion 4.96% 3.76% 1. 95% 1.06% 0.46% 1.81% OutsideMSA 0.77 0.41 0.71 0.2 3 0.19 0.23 Under2SO 1.18 1.70 0 .96 0 75 0.27 0.62 250-499 1.63 0.93 0.08 0.58 0.05 0.48 500-999 2.26 1.01 0.75 0.58 0. 1 3 0.88 I ,000-2 999 2. 19 1.69 1.0 I 0.81 0.18 1.01 3,000 + 7.96 5.66 3.02 1.56 LOS 3.77 Souree: Houselto l d F iJe for proximity to transit scops 311d Tta\'tl Day Fil e Figure A -28. Public Transit Market Share by MSA Population and Proximity to Transit Stops. 8 0 Within One Block 0 One Block-Quarter Mile 'if. 6 Quarter Mile-Half Mile --------_____ .... !! Half Mile-One Mile '" .::: 4 ------en Beyond One Mile ;;; c "' 12 0 Nation Outside Under 250 250-499 500-999 1,000-2,999 3,000 + MSA MSA Population (I,OOOs) Source: Table Al8.

PAGE 106

A-30 T a bl e A-29. Public T ransit Market Sh are by Urbanization and Proximity to Tran sit Stops. Urbanization Proximity of Residence t o Transit Stops Wit hin One One BlockQuarter Half MileBeyond Total Block Quarter Mile-Half One Mile One Mile Mile Mile Nation 4.96% 3. 76% 1.95% 1.06% 0.46% 1.81% Rural 0.12 NA 0.76 0.05 0.42 0.18 Small Town 0.72 1.57 0.26 0 42 0.17 0 30 Suburb 1.95 1.10 1.15 1.01 0 .56 1.16 Second City 2 .33 125 1.23 0.58 0.24 1.22 Urban 10.72 8.86 5.14 2.72 5.30 8.26 SollfOC: House bold !!'il e for proximity t() transit s10ps and Tta ... tl Day NA means n o sam plod trips. Figure A-29. P ublic Transit Market Sbare b y Urban izat i o o a n d Proximity to Transit Stops. 12 0 \Vllhil One Block 10 8 "' -"' 6 Cll .-----, 0 One Block-Quarter :Mile 1 _____ Quarter :Mile-Half :Mile Half:Mile-One Mile Beyond One :Mile --"' 4 c 2 ----------------------1 0 Nation Rural Small Town Suburb Second City Urban Urbanizafun Source: Table A-29.

PAGE 107

A-31 Table A-30. Public Transit Market Share b y MSA P o pul ation and F requen cy of Use. MSA Population Frequency of Public Transit Use in the Two Months Before Interview (1, 000s) Two or More About Once a Once. or T wice Less Than Total Times a Wee k Week a Month Once a Month Na t ion 24. 83% 8. 12% 2. 75% 0.89% 1.8 1 % O utsideMSA 5.52 1.61 2 .13 2 66 0 23 Under250 15. 94 0 07 1 .45 0.55 0 .62 250-499 12. 26 11.02 0.82 0.00 0.48 500-999 19.83 8 00 1.69 0.45 0.88 1,000-2,999 19 .41 4.75 1.79 0.59 1.01 3 000 + 27.52 9.55 3 .37 1.05 3. 77 File f o t frequency of usc aod Tran 1 Day Fil e Figure A-30. Public Transit Market Share by MSA Population and Frequency of Use 35 More Times a ; 30 n About Once a Week ------.. '$. 25 Once or Twice a Month ----. --" 20 Less Than Once a Month .. ..... ---..c {/) 15 1 -., 10 = 1 ----[f .. ---E!:: 5 ]L IJ::.... 1:--h.:: 0 Nation Outside Under250 250499 500..999 1 ,0003,000+ MSA 2;m MSA Population (I ,OOOs) Source: Tabl e A-:30

PAGE 108

A-32 Table A-31 P ublic Transit Market Sbare by Urbanizatio n and Frequency of Use. Urbanization Frequency of Public Transit Use in the Two Months Before Interview Two or More About Once a Once or Twice Less Than Total Times a Week Week a Month Once a Month Nation 24.83% 8.12% 2 .75% 0.89"/o 1.81% Rural 2.75 1.05 0.08 1.97 0 .18 SmaU Town 4.55 1.95 2.16 0.74 0.30 Suburb 1 7.10 8.25 1.40 0.79 l.J6 Second City 18.48 6.38 1.66 0.63 1.22 Urban 30.45 9.52 5.09 1.20 8.26 Source: Person F i l e for frequency of use and Travel Day F i l e Figure A-31. Public Transit Market Share by Urbanization and Frequency of Use. 35 30 or More Times a -1--OAbout Once a Week -----------------11----1 25 -1-r.....-l Once or Twice a Month t---------------20 Less Than Once a Month ..c: {I) 15 -"' <: 10 "' 5 I 0 Nation Rural SmaDTown Suburb Second City Urban Urbanization Source: Table A-3J.

PAGE 109

APPENDIX 8 SUB-MARKETS This appendix presents statistics on public transit's sub-markets. Sub-markets are mea sured using the distribution of linked pub lic transit trips among population groups associated with a panicular personal, household, or land use characteristic. Population groups are def!Ded by demographic, socio-economic, or land use characteristics along "itb one of two geographic units : MSA population category or urbaniution classification. For a given characteristic public transit's sub-mar kets are shown in both tabular and graphic fonnat first by MSA population categories and then by urbaniution clas sifi cat i ons. B-1

PAGE 110

B-2 Table B-1. Public Transit Sub-Markets by MSA Population and Urbanization. MSA Urbanization Population (I ,OOOs) Rural Small Suburb Second Urban Total Town City Outside MSA 55% 40% N A 5% 0% 100% Under 250 9 18 2 70 N A 100 250:499 3 3 1 4 80 NA 10 0 500-999 I 11 23 47 18 100 I ,000-2,999 I 4 25 25 45 100 3,000 + 0 2 1 6 6 77 100 Nation 2 4 16 12 66 100 Souroe: Travel Day fife. NA muns no trips sampled. ()means less than 0.5 percent Figure B-1 Public Transit Sub-Markets by MSA P o pulat io n and Urbanization. 100"10 80"10 Uban I 60"10 40"10 Secon
PAGE 111

Table B-2. Public Transit Sob-Markets by MSA Popula tion and Person Age. MSA Populatio n (1,000s) Person Age Category Under 18 18 to 64 65 + Outside MSA 33% 39% 29% Under 250 14 74 12 250-499 I I 75 14 500 -999 17 68 15 1 000,999 19 69 12 3,0 00 + 14 76 9 Nation 15 74 10 Travel Day f'ik.. Figure B-2. Public Transit Sob-Ma rkets by MSA Population aod Person Age. 100% )I! e s. 80% 60% ... 0 40"/o c .51 .5 20% c 0% 0 Soun:le: Table S.l. Nation Outside MSA Under 250-499 5 00 999 250 MSA Population (1,000s) 1,0003,000 + 2,999 B-3 Total 100% 100 100 100 100 100 100

PAGE 112

T a b le B-3 Public Tran sit SubM a r kets by Urbanization and Person Age. Urbanization PersonAge Under 18 1 8 to 64 65 + Rur al 40% 41% 1 9'/o Small Town 20 61 1 9 Suburb 20 72 7 Second City 13 77 1 0 Urban 14 76 10 Nation 1 5 74 1 0 Source: Travel Dar file. Figure B-3. Public Tran s it Sub M arkets by U rbanizati o n and P erson Age. 100% a 80% ?= 60% .... 0 40% .2 -20% .., c 0% 0 Souroc:: Table: 8 Nation Rural Small Town Suburb Urbanization Second City Uban B-4 Total 100% 100 100 100 100 100 .--=-:--->1 65+ I 18to64 I oUnder 18 1 I

PAGE 113

Table B-4. Public Tr-.lns i t Sub-Markets by MSA Population and License Status. MSA Population ( l,OOOs) License Starus Driver NonDriver Outside MSA 49% 51% Under250 60 40 250-499 27 7' , 500-999 40 60 1,000-2,999 46 5 4 3,000 + 44 56 Nation 44 56 Souroe: Tra\'tl Day fil e Figure B-4. Public T ransit Sub-Markets by MSA Population and L ice nse S tatu s. '0' 100% a 80% -;;; 60% a !-... 400/o 0 c .2 = :e 200/o 0 0% Source; t'abl e 8-4. Nation Outside MSA l.hder 250 250-499 500-999 J ,00(). 2,999 MSAPopulation {l,OOOs) 3,000+ B 5 Total 100% 100 100 100 100 1 00 100 r""N"''o-n""-Driv;::-:-. .-.r![ oDriver

PAGE 114

Table B-5. Public Transit Sub-Markets by U r banization and License Status. Urbanization License Status Driver Non-Driver Rural 50% 500/o Small Town 65 35 Suburb 62 38 Second City 39 61 Urban 40 60 Nation 44 56 Source: Travel Day File. Figure B-5. Public Transit Sub-Markets by Urbanization and License Status. 100% Q. c f-< 80% -;;; a ?: 60% .... 0 40% = .51 :; :!l 200/o 1;; 0 00/o Souroe: Table a.s. Nation Rural Small Town Suburb Ubanization Second City Uban B-6 Total 1000/o 100 100 100 100 100 Non-Driver I i 0Driver I

PAGE 115

Tabl e B-6 Public Transit Sub-Markets by MSA Po p u lation a n d Gender. MSA Popul a tion (I,OOOs) Gender Male Female OutsideMSA 47% 53% Under250 61 39 250-499 45 55 500 999 36 64 1 000-2,999 37 63 3,000 + 44 56 N ation 43 57 Figure B-6. Public Transit SubMarket s by MSA Po pulation and Gender. !00% 60"/o 40"/o 20% B-7 Tota l 100% 100 100 100 100 100 100 Female [ oMal e 1 1 I Nation Outside MSA Lilder 250-499 500-999 1 0003,000 + 250 2 999 MSAPopulation (I ,OOOs) Sovrce: Tabl e B-6.

PAGE 116

Table B-7. Public Transit Sub-Markets by Urbaaizallo o aod Urbanization Gender Male Female Rural 49'/o 51% Small Town 48 52 Suburb 47 53 Second Ci ly 4 5 55 Urban 42 58 Nation 43 57 Table B -7 Public Transit Sub-Markets by Urbaottatioo aod Gender. l 100% a 80% f-60% ... 0 40% g :& 20% ;:: !! 0 0% Source: Table 8 7 Nation Rural Small Town Suburb Ubanization Second City B-8 Total 100% 100 100 100 100 100 .Fem1le oMale

PAGE 117

Table B-8 Public Transit Sub-Markets by MSA Population and Working Status. MSA Working Status During the Week Before Interview Population Full T ime (I,OOOs} Part Time Not Working Retired OutsideMSA 24% 18% 27% 31% Under250 52 17 21 JO 250 499 30 4 50 16 500-999 40 19 30 10 J ,0002,999 44 15 27 1 4 3,000 + so 15 27 9 Nation 48 15 27 10 Source: Person File for worlc;ing swus and Tra,el Day file. Figure B-8. Pub lic Transit Sub-Markets by MSA Population and Working Status. 100% 60% 40"/o 20% Nation Outside Under 250-499 500 -99 9 1,000-3,000 + MSA 250 2,999 MSA Population (l,OOOs) Source: Tablt B-&. B-9 Total 1 00% 1 00 100 1 00 100 100 100 I 1 Retired 1 I Not Worl
PAGE 118

Table B-9. Public Transit Sub-Markets by Urbaoizatioo sod Wor kiog Status. Urbanization Working Status During the Week Before Interview Full Time Part Time Not Working Retired Rural 37% 21% 2$% 16% Small Town 56 8 IS 21 Suburb 61 17 15 7 Second City 41 1 6 34 9 Urban 46 IS 29 10 Nat i on 48 15 27 1 0 Source: Pmon fil e fot "'Orking; $.tatu$ an4 Tra"d 0&}' File. Figure B-9. Public Transit Sub-Markets by Urbanization and Workiog Sta t us. '$. 100% a 80% f= -.,; 60% '-40% 0 2 -20% .0 'E 0 i5 0% Sout Worl
PAGE 119

Table B-10. Public Transit Sub-Markets by MSA Population and Race. MSA Population Race (l,OOOs) White Black Others Outside MSA 96% 4% 0% U nder250 66 1 9 15 250-499 47 35 1 8 500-999 39 37 25 I ,000-2,999 48 4 7 4 3,000 + 38 46 16 Nation 42 44 15 Souroc:: Tra\'C1 Day File. Figure 8.10. Public Transit Sub-Markets by MSA Populat ion and Race. 100% 'ii. Q. f5 8()0,.{, 600/o :g I! ;-. ... 40% 0 c .2 '5 .&> .s 20% 0 0% Source:: T<'ble 8 Nation Outside MSA Thder 250-499 500-999 250 MSA Population (I,OOOs) 1,000-3,000 + 2,999 B-11 Total 100% 100 100 100 100 100 100 Others '1 I ;Black I a White I

PAGE 120

Table B-11. Public Transit Su b Markets by Urbanization and Race Urbanization Race White Black Others Rural 95% 1% 4% Small Town 80 15 5 Suburb 63 30 7 Secon d City 47 37 16 Urban 32 51 17 Nation 4 2 44 IS Source: Tra\el Day File. F ig ure B-11. Public Trans it Sub-Markets by U rbanization and Race. '$. 1000/o c. 800/o 'I: f-o 600/o {: .... 0 400/o c .2 :; 200/o .&> 'I: -0 00/o Source: Table B-11. Nation Rural Small Town Suburb l.kbanization Second City Urban Bl2 Tota l 1000/o 100 100 100 100 100 Others! Black oWhite

PAGE 121

Table B-12Public Transit Sub-Markets by MSA Population and EtbnicityMSA Population Ethnicity (l,OOOs) Hispanic Non Hispanic Outside MSA 10% 90% Under250 13 87 250-499 25 75 500 -999 6 94 1,000-2 999 s 95 3,000 + 19 8 1 Nation 1 7 83 Source: Travel Day File. Figure B-12-Public Transit Sub-Markets by MSA Population and Etbnicity -100% "" t.. "' Q. ;;: f-80% '" "' "' 60% .. ?; '-40% 0 .2 -" .L> t: 20% :;; 0 0% Souroc: Table B-1 2 Nation Outside MSA U.der 250-499 500-999 1 0003,000 + 250 2,999 MSAPopulalion (l,OOOs) B-13 Total 100% 100 100 !00 100 10 0 100 ; Non-HispaniC] I oH.ispanic I

PAGE 122

T ab le B-13. Public Transit Sub-Markets by Urbaniza t i o n and Ethnlelty. Urbanization Ethnieity Hispanic Non-Hispanic Rural 17% 83% Small Town 3 97 Suburb 8 92 Second City 12 88 Urban 21 79 Nation 17 83 Source: Tra\ e l Day File. Figure B-13. Public Tr2osit Sub Markets by Urbanization and E1bnicity. 100'/o "' 80% c.. -;;; 60% iij ,::: ... 40% 0 c 0 s ..0 20% ;: -"' i:5 0% Table 8.13. Nation Rural Small Town Suburb Second City Ubanization Urban B-1 4 Total 100% 100 100 100 100 100 Non-Hispanic l oHispanic

PAGE 123

B-15 Table B-14. Public Transit Sub-l" larkets by MSA Population and Household Incom e. MSA Population Household income (I,OOOs) Under $15 ,000 $I 5,000-$49,999 $50,000 + Total OutsideMSA 21% 59"/o 20% 1 00% Under250 33 40 2 7 100 250-499 63 23 14 100 500-999 32 50 1 8 100 1,000-2,999 50 31 20 100 3,000 + 30 43 27 100 Nation 32 42 26 100 Souroe: 'travel O:i) File, Figure B-14. Public Transit Sub-Markets by MSA P opulation and Household Income. "0' 100% '$ ii ;: f-800/o -;;; c .., ?: 600/o '-0 40% c .2 -" P-20% -.!i Q 00/o Sour0e: Table 8--14. Nation Outside MSA lhlder 250-499 500-999 250 MSAPopulation (i,OOOs) 1,000 2,999 3,000 + .$50,000+ $15,000-$49,9991 0 Under $15,000 I

PAGE 124

B-16 Table B-15. Public Transi t Sub-Markets by Urbaniza ti on and Household Income. Urbanization Household Income Under $ 15,000 $15,000-$49,999 $50,000 + Total Rural 10% 46% 44% 100% Small Town 14 46 39 100 Suburb 1 5 35 49 100 Second City 42 35 23 100 Urban 36 45 19 100 Nation 32 42 26 100 Souroc: Travel File. Figure B-15. Public Transit Sub-Markets by Urb anizati o n and House h o l d Income. '-' 100"/o jg, 80% "" "' c: "' -;... 600/o '0 400/o c: .S! 'S 200/o .D ;:: "' 0 00/o Source: TableNation Rural Small Suburb Second Urban Town City Urbanization $50,000 + $15,000-$49,999 0 U nder $15,000

PAGE 125

B-17 T able B-1 6. P a bli c Tran s i t S ub-Markets by MSA Popu lation and V e h i cle Owntrsbip. MSA Population Househo l d Vehicle Ownership ( i,OOOs) Zero-Vehicle One-Veh icle MultiVehicle Total Households H ouseholds Househo lds OutsideMSA 18% 27% 55% 100% Under250 25 36 39 100 2 5 0-499 56 20 24 100 500 999 35 46 19 1 00 1 ,000-2 ,999 46 27 27 100 3 000 + 50 30 20 1 00 Nation 47 3 1 22 100 So urce: Tra\'el Day F i l e Figure B-16. P ub li c Tra n sit S u b-Markets b y MSA P o p ulation a n d Ve h icle Own ersb.ip. '0" I 00"/o "$ .e-80"/o ?: -60"/0 ;;; = '-0 40% = .2 -20% ... ;:: 1h i5 0% Nation Outside Ul d er 250-499 500-999 MSA 250 MSAPopulation (l,OOOs) 1,00(). 2,999 3,000 + Muki-Vebi c l e : One-Vehicle a ZeroVehicle

PAGE 126

B-18 Table B-17. Public Transit Sub-Markets by Urbanization and Vehicle Ownership. Urbanization Household Vehic l e Ownership Zero-Vehicle OneVehicle Multi Vehicle Total Households Households Households Rural Ii% 20% 69% 100% Small Town 1 0 20 70 100 Suburb ll 41 47 100 Second City 42 33 25 100 Urban 60 28 II 100 Nation 47 31 22 100 Source: Tta\'el Da y Fil e Figure B-17 Public Transit Sub-Markets by Urbanization a n d Vehicle O wnership. 100"/o w c. 80% -;;; 60% c '" "" 0 400/o c .S! -200/o .&> '<:: 00/o 0 Nation SourQC: 1 al)lt 8 17. Rural Small Town Suburb Second City l.kbanization {X ban Muhi -Vehicle I I One -Vehicle 0 Zero Vehicle

PAGE 127

B-19 Table B-18. Public Transit Sub-Markets by MSA Populatio n and Boone Owuersbip. MSA Population Home Ownership (l,OOOs} Home -Owner Renter Total Outs ide MSA 68% 32% 100% Under2SO 59 41 100 250 -499 45 55 100 500-999 45 53 100 1,000-2,999 45 55 100 3,000 ... 34 66 100 Nation 37 62 \00 Source:: Household File for home ownefthi p and 'travel Day File:. Figure B-18 Public Transit S ub-M arkets by MSA Population and Home Ownership. I 00"/o w .9-80"/o -;;; = e 60"/o Renter .... .... 40"/o 0 \ CJ Home Owner d -;; 20% .0 c .lii O"lo c Source: Tal>le B-l8. Nation Outside M S A U nder 250.499 500.999 250 MSA Population (l,OOOs) 1,000 2$99 3,000+

PAGE 128

T a ble B-19 Public Transit Sub-Markets by Urbaoizati on and H ome Ownership. Urbanization Home O"'nership HomeOwner Renter Rura l 85% 14% Small Town 68 30 Suburb 5 9 41 Second City 41 59 Urban 28 7 1 Nati on 37 62 Sowce: H<>1mMJd fil e f ownet"$hip and Tm-el Day File . Figure B-19. Publi c Transit Sub-Markets by Urbanization and Home Ownership. -;;_ 100% .e. 80"/o E!: 60"/o f-o '-40"/o 0 c: 2 -20% .D c -i5 0"/o Source: Table B-19 Nation Small Town Suburb Second City tkbanizalion tkban B-20 Total 100% 100 100 100 100 100 Renter I I oHomeOwner i

PAGE 129

Table B-20-Pub lic Transit Sub-Markets by MSA Population and Life Cycle. MSA Population Life Cycle {l,OOOs) Singl e -A d ul t Households Multi-Adult Households Outside MSA 2 1 % 79% U nder250 40 60 250-499 19 81 500-999 26 74 I ,000-2,999 46 54 3 000 + 29 71 Natio n 31 69 Source: Trave l Day file Figure B-20. Public Transit Sub-Markets by 1\ISA Population a n d Life Cyele. 100% 80% 60% 20% Sowce : Table B-20. Nation Outside MSA Under 250-499 500-999 250 MSAPopulation {l,OOOs) I 000, 3,000 + 2,999 B-21 Total 100% 100 100 100 100 100 100 j Muhi-Aduh ,, I oSingle-Aduk 'I l I

PAGE 130

T able B-21. Public Transit S u b-Markets by Urb aniza tion and Life Cycle. Urbanization Life Cyc l e Single-Adull Househo l ds Mulli Adul t Households Rural 14% 86% Small Town 15 85 Suburb 18 82 Second City 30 70 Urb an 35 65 Nation 31 69 Source: Tralel Day File. Figure B-2 1. Public Transit Sub-Marke t s by Urbani zation and Lif e Cycl e. -60% ;;; 1-... 40% 0 .2 200/o i5 00/o Nation Sowce : Tabl e 8-21 Rural Small Town Suburb Second City l.kbaniza!ion U:ban B -22 Total 100% 100 100 100 100 100 Muhi-Aduh I 0 Single-Adult I ' '!

PAGE 131

Tabl e B-22. Public Transit Sub-Markets by MSA Population and Ho using Density. MSA Residential Housing Densi ty in Units per Square M i le Population (I,OOOs) Under 50 50-249 250-999 I ,000-1,999 2,000+ Outside MSA 36% 17% 25% 8% 13% Undcr250 4 8 31 24 33 250-499 4 6 1 4 29 47 500-999 4 5 1 4 1 5 62 I ,000-2,999 2 2 13 16 67 3,000 + 0 2 5 8 84 Nation 2 2 8 10 78 SourCe: Travel Day Fil e 0 less than O.S percent. Figu r e B-22 Pub lic Transit Sub-Markets by MSA Populati o n and Housi ng Density. '0' 100"/o 0. 80% 60% j! f-... 40% 0 "' 2 -:0 .&> 20% ;:: ;;; i5 0% SouC'QC; 'rabte '8-22. Na1ion Outside MSA Lbder 250-499 5()().999 250 lv!SA Population (1, 000s) 1,000 3 000 + 2,999 B-23 Total 100% 100 1 00 100 1 00 100 100 1 2,000+ i: 1,ooo.1,999 1 .250-999 : I D 5().249 II I 0 Under 50 1

PAGE 132

Table B-23. P ublic Transit Sub-Market s b y Urbanization and Housing Density. Urbanization Residential Housing Density in Units p e r Square Mile Under SO S0-249 250-999 1,000-1,999 2,000 + Rural 52% 21% 28% NA NA Small Town 14 30 33 9 IS Suburb 0 4 2 1 34 42 Seeond City 0 2 19 23 56 Urban 0 0 0 3 91 Nat ion 2 2 8 10 78 SoOt : Travel Day File. NA means no uips sampled. 0 means less O.S percent. Fig u re B-23. Public Transit Sub-Markets by Urbaniza t ion and Housing Density. 1000/o a 800/o -:;; c 600/o e f-... 400/o 0 c .9 -" .D 200/o ;:: -0 0% So urce: Table Nation Rural Small Town Suburb Second City lkbanization l\'ban B-24 Total 100% 100 100 100 100 100 I 1 2,000+ l l i 1 ,000-1,999 ; I j 250-999 I [JSG-249 i aUnder50 1 I

PAGE 133

Table B-:!4. Public Transit Sub-Markets by MSA Population and Population Density MSA Residential Population Density in Persons per Square Mile Population (l ,OOOs) U nder 500 500-1,999 2,000-3,999 4,000-9,999 10,000 + OutsideMSA 53% 26% 9% 12% 1% Under 250 11 26 29 31 3 250-499 10 4 33 46 8 500-999 4 16 1 4 40 25 1 000-2,999 4 5 19 4 4 28 3,000 + I 4 7 17 71 Nation 3 6 9 22 60 Sourc.e: tr.wel Day File. Figure B-24. Public Transit Sub-Markets by MSA Population and Population Dens ity. 100% "' Q. E-"= 80% "' 60% "' :;j ,::: ..... 0 40% c 0 s .1:> 20% ;:; -.; i5 00/o Sourt.e: f<'b\.e 8 Nation Outside MSA Thder 250-499 500-999 250 MSA Populalion (1,000s) 1,000-3,000 + 2,999 B-25 Tota l 100% 100 100 100 1 00 1 00 100

PAGE 134

B-26 Tabl e B-25. P u bli c Transit Sub-Markets b y Urbaoizalio o and Po p ul a tio n Dens i ty. Urbaniz a tion Residential Population Den si ty in Persons per Square Mile Unde r 500 500 1 ,999 2 000-3,999 4,000-9 999 10,000 + Total Rural 72% 28% NA NA NA tOO% Small To"n 28 4 1 13 1 7 0 100 Suburb 3 I I 29 43 1 3 1 00 Second City 2 14 25 39 20 100 Urban 0 0 I 1 4 84 100 Nation J 6 9 22 60 100 Sour: Travel Day Filt. NA men oo tripS sampled. 0 means ltss than o.s pcroeot. Figure B-25. P u blic Transit Sub-Markets by Urbaniza ti on and Population D e n s i ty 100% >!?. Q. ;:: f-800/o c 600/0 E f--0 400/o c .2 ""' 200/0 ;:: a 00/0 Rural Small Town Suburb l.kbanization Second City l.kban 1 .10,000 + .4,000.9,999 I .2,000.3,999 C]S00-1,999 1 Cl Under soo 1

PAGE 135

B-27 Table B-26. Public Transi t Sub-Markets by MSA P op u latio n a n d Emp loyment D ens i ty. MSA Work Site Emp loyment Density i n Jobs per Square Mile Population ( l,OOOs) U nder SO S0-49 9 500,999 2 000-9 999 10, 000 + Total O utsideMSA 6 1 % 1 2% 18% 7% 2 % 100% U nder2SO 9 21 50 1 20 100 2 50-499 NA I 32 21 4 6 100 500-999 NA 4 28 13 55 100 1 0002 ,999 2 3 1 8 32 45 100 3 000 + 1 3 8 27 61 100 Nation 2 4 II 26 57 100 Source: Person Fil e for densjty and Travel Day File, NA means no trips sampled. Figure B-26. Public Transit Sub-Markets by MSA Population and Employment D ensity. 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% Source: Tab-le B Nation Outside MSA l.llder 250-499 500-999 250 MSA Population (l,OOOs) 1 ,0002 ,999 3,000 + > i a_,l.,.o,ooo==-+--,11 2,000-9,999,1 as00-1,999 I o50499 I ioUnderSO l I I

PAGE 136

B-28 Tab le B-27. P u bl ic Transi t Sub-Ma r kets b y Urbaniza t ion and Employment De n sity. Urbanization Work Site Employment Density in Jobs per Square Mile Under 50 50-499 500 1 999 2,000-9,999 10 000 + Total Rural 49% 12% 14% 2 1 % 4% Small Town 9 12 27 21 32 Suburb 3 5 20 18 54 Second City 4 13 24 15 44 Urban 0 I 6 29 64 Nation 2 4 ll 26 57 SoUJce: PQWn file f<>r employment density and Tra,el Day File. 0 means less than 0 5 percent. Figure B-27. Public T ransit Sub-Ma r kets b y Urbao ixa t ioo and Emp l oyment Density. '0' 100010 <>. ;: !-80% ;;; 60% !-'-0 40% I .2 20% _g 't:: :;; i5 0% Source: Table 8 Na!ion Rural Small Town Suburb U:banization Second City lkban 100% 100 100 100 100 1 00 0 10,000+ 0 2,()()().9,999 .500-1,999 .50499 Under 50

PAGE 137

B 29 Table B-28. Public Transit Sub-Markets by MSA Population and Proximity to Transit StopS-MSA Proxim ity of Residen c e to Nearest Transit Stop Population Within One Half MileBeyond One (I,OOOs) One BlockQuarter MileTotal B lock Quarter Mile Half Mile One M ile Mile Outside -MSA 52% 6% 21% 6% 14% 100% Under250 42 22 20 9 7 1 00 250-499 66 16 3 13 2 100 500-999 66 9 1 5 8 2 100 1 000-2,999 52 17 19 1 0 2 100 3,000 + 59 18 16 4 2 100 Nation 59 1 8 16 5 3 100 Source. : Household File for to transit stops and Tra"el Day File. Figure B-28 Public Transit Sub-Markets by MSA Population and Proximity to Transit Stops. 80"/o 60% 40% 20% 0% Source: Tabl e B-28 Nation Outside MSA Under 250-499 500-999 250 MSA Population (l,OOOs) 1,000-3,000+ 2,999 I I oBeyond One Mile I I oHalfMile-One Mile I I Quarter Mile-Half Mile 'I[ One Mile i Within One Block J I I

PAGE 138

B-30 Table B-29. Public Transit Sub-Markets by Urbanization and Proxi mi ty to Transit Stops Urbanization Proximity of Residence to Nearest Transit Stop Within One One BlockQuarter Mile-Half MileBeyond One Total Block Quarter Mile Half Mile One Mile Mile Rura l 8% NA 26% 1% 64% 100% Small Town 37 2 1 II IS 6 .100 Su burb 42 II 26 15 6 100 Second City 59 13 2 1 6 2 100 Urban 63 20 13 3 I JOO Nation 59 18 16 5 3 100 S<>W'Oe: Household File for d i s tance co transit stops and Travel 0&}' File. NA means no trips samp led. Figure B-29 Public Transit Sub-Markets by Urbanization and P rox i mity to Transit Stops. 100% '$. .e-!-800/o -;;; c 60% ..... 0 40% c .2 -20% "" ;; i:5 00/o Source: Table B 29 Nation Rural Small Suburb Second lkban Town City lkban.ization 0 Beyond One Mile 0 Half Mile-one Mile Quarter Mile-Half Mile One Block-Quarter Mile Within One Block

PAGE 139

B-31 Table B-30. l'ubllc Transit Sub-Markets by MSA Population and Frequency of Use. MSA Popul ation Frequency of Public Transit Use in the Two Months Before Interview (l,OOOs) Two or More Times a About Once a Week Less Than Once a Total Week Week OutsideMSA 63% 9"!. 28% 100% Under250 91 0 9 100 250-499 71 24 5 100 500-999 84 9 7 100 1,000-2,999 82 9 10 10 0 3,000 + 85 9 7 10 0 Nation 8 4 9 7 100 Source: Person File for ficquenc)' o f usc and Travel Day file. 0 meUis less than O.S percent. Figure B-30. Pub li c Transit Sub-Markets by MSA Population and Frequency of Use. 80% 60"/o 40% 20% 0% Nation Outside Und 25(). 4 99 50().999 MSA 250 MSA Po pu lation (l,OOOs) Soutte: Table S.3 0 1 ,0002,999 3,000 + I ol..ess Than Once a Week Abou t Once a Week Two or More Times a Week 1

PAGE 140

B-32 Table B-31Public Transit Sub-Markets by Urbaoization and Frequency of Use_ Urb anization Frequency of Public Transit Use in the Two Months Before Interview Two or More Times a About Once a Week Less Than Once a Total Week Week Rural 60% 10% 30% 100% Small Town 57 J1 32 100 Suburb 72 17 11 100 Second City 82 9 9 100 U r ban 87 7 6 100 N ation 84 9 7 100 Source: Person File for frequency cruse and Tta\'el Day File. Figure B-31Public Transit Sub-Mar kets by Urbaoiutioo aod Frequency of Use-80% 60% 40"/o 20% 0% S<>ur<:e: Table 8--31. Nation Rural Small Suburb Second lkban Tow n City Thbanization oless Than Once a Week About Once a Week I Two or More Times a Week I

PAGE 141

C-1 APPENDIXC PROPENSITY FOR TRANSIT USE This appendix present s sta tistics on the propensity for transit use by various popula tion groups. Propensity for transit use is measure d for th ose people who perceive that one fonn o f public transit is available to them Popu lation groups are d
PAGE 142

C-2 Tabl e C -1. P rope n s i ty for Trans i t Use b y M SA P o p u lation and Urbau ization MSA Urban iza tion Populatio n (l,OOOs) R u r a l Small T 0\\11 Subu r b S ec ond City Urban Total Nation 0.41 0. 2 8 0.47 0.54 2.63 1.00 Outside MSA 0.6 3 0.35 0.00 0.12 0 04 0.41 Under250 0.33 0.29 0 .20 0.45 0.00 0.39 250499 0.14 0.0 4 0 .15 0.45 0 00 0. 2 7 500-999 0.08 0.31 0.26 0.62 1.00 0. 4 5 1 000 2 999 0.27 0 1 8 0.24 0 .6 1 1.02 0.47 3,000 + 0.12 0 .38 0.67 0 64 3.0 5 1.60 Sour : Person File aDd Travel Day File, Figure C -1 P ro pensity for Trausit Use by J.l.lSA P o p ulati o n and Urb a niza tion. 0 Small T own I ;;; 3 Sec o n d 2 ----.. ----l Urban c .. I"" o I +'-'-Nation Souroe. Table C-1. Outside Under 250 250-499 500-999 1,000-2,999 3,000 + MSA MSA Population { l,OOOs)

PAGE 143

Table C-2. Propensity for Transit Use by MSA Population and Person Age. MSA Population Person Age (I,OOOs) Under 18 18 to 64 65+ Nation 0.77 1.10 0.82 OutsideMSA 0.64 0.24 0 .81 Under250 0.30 0.44 0 36 250-499 0 .14 0.30 0.29 500-999 0 38 0.46 0.46 1,000-2,999 0.43 0.48 0.44 3,000 + 1.16 1.78 1.24 Souroc:: Pc:lSOn File and Trav e l Day File. Figure C-2. Propensity for Transit Use b y MSA Population and Person Age. I 2 .-:::::: "' I ;; -I I 0 I .iil & 0 !C: I 0 +-'' QUnder to64 65+ ---------------------Total 1.00 0.41 0.41 0 .26 0.45 0.46 1.59 Natio n Outside Under 250 250-499 500-999 1,000-2,999 3,000 + MSA MSA Population (I,OOOs) Source: iable c.l. C-3

PAGE 144

C-4 Table C-3. Propensity for Transit Use by Urbaohalion and Person Age. Urbanization Person Age Under 18 1 8 to 64 65+ Total Nation 0.77 1.10 0.82 1.00 Rural 0.68 0 26 0.70 0.41 Small Town 0.25 0 26 0.46 0.28 Suburb 0.46 0.50 0.31 0.47 Second C ity 0.40 0.62 0.36 0.54 Urban 1.96 2.91 2 .08 2.63 Sooroe: Person File 2ind Travel Oay File. Fignre Cc3. Propensity for Transit Use by Urbanizati on and Person Age. 3 ,-----------iOUnder 1 8 f----------=--.---, N ati o n Source: Tab le: C-3. .181064 65+ -------. --------------------= ---------1 Rural SmaUTown Suburb Second City U rban Urbanization

PAGE 145

C-5 Table C-4. Propensity for Transit Use by MSA Population and License Status. MSA Population Licens e Status (l,OOOs) Driver Non-Driver Total Nation 0.62 1.97 1.00 Outside MSA 0.27 0.82 0.41 Under 250 0 .32 0.69 0.41 250-499 0.10 0.74 0.26 500-999 0.24 1.06 0.45 !,000 2,999 0.29 0.96 0.46 3,000 + 1.02 2.88 1.59 Source: Person File and Travel D
PAGE 146

C-6 Table C-5. Propensity for Traosit Use by Urbanizatioo aod License Status Urbanization License Status Driver No n Driv e r Total Nation 0.62 1.9 7 1.00 Rural 0.29 0 .70 0.41 Small Town 0 25 0 3 9 0.28 Suburb 0 .38 0.75 0.47 Second City 0. 2 9 1.26 0.54 Urban 1.66 4.32 2 .63 Souroe: PC1$0n File and Tta\'el Day file, Figure C-5. Propensity for Transit Use by Urbanization aod Liceose Status. I 5 "' ':::::> 4 -------.. -------...... ............. .. __ ___ __ ---.. 1 -"' II! !3 ... 0 2 !';;; 5 I "" 0 ... ;:>.. ........ ----0 Nation Rural Small Town Suburb Second City Urban Urbanization Souroe: Table C-S.

PAGE 147

Table C-6. Propens ity for Transit Use by MSA Population aod Gender. MSA Population Gender (I,OOOs) Mal e Female Nation 0.90 1.09 Outside MSA 0 40 0.42 Under2SO 0.50 0.31 250-499 0.24 0.29 500-999 0 .33 0.56 1,000-2,999 0.36 0.56 3,000 + 1.45 1.73 Source: Person F ile: and travel 03y Fil e Figure C-6. Propensity for Transit Use by MSA Population aod Gender I I"' .::> "' 2 ...---------oMaie Female 1>---------i 0 -!--1-Total 1.00 0.41 0.41 0 26 0.45 0.46 1.59 Nation Outside Under 250 250-499 500.999 1,000.2,999 3 ,000 + MSA MSA Population (l,OOOs) Source: Table. C-6. C-7

PAGE 148

Table C-7. Propensity for Transit Use by Urbanization and Gender. Urbanization Gender Male Female Nati. on 0.90 1.09 Rural 0.42 0.40 Small Town 0.28 0.28 Suburb 0.45 0 .49 Second City 0 .51 0.58 Urban 2.37 2.85 Source: Pmon F i l e and Travel Day File. Figure C7. Propensity for Transit Use by Urbanization and Gender 3 0 .--------10Male Female Nation Rural Small Town Suburb Urbani2ation Soun;e: Table C.7 SecondCi!y C-8 Total 1.00 0.41 0.28 0.47 0.5 4 2.63 Urban

PAGE 149

C-9 Table C-8. Propensity for Transit Use by M SA Popu l ation a ad Worldng Status. MSA Population Working Status During the Week Before Int erview (I,OOOs) Full Time Part Time Not Working R e tired Total Nation 0.90 1.14 1.37 0 .72 1.00 Outside MSA 0.16 0.44 0.46 0.61 0.33 Under250 0.37 0.46 0 43 0:1.7 0.38 250499 0.16 0.09 0 .7 0 0 .30 0 .27 5 00 0.33 0.61 0.70 0 30 0.44 1 000-2 999 0 .36 0 47 0 63 0.46 0 44 3,0 00 + 1.49 1.91 2.09 1.08 1.62 Figure C -8. Propensity for Transit Use by MSA P opu l ation aod Worldog Status. 3 FuR Time Part Time "' .NotWmking c: 2 {f. ----I Retml l ----... oil 1 --"' l 0 Nation Outside Under250 250499 5 00.999 1 000.2,999 3,000+ MSA MSA Populatm (l,OOOs) Source: Table C-8.

PAGE 150

C-10 Tabl e C-9. Propensity for Tramit Use by U rbaolulion and Working StatU$. Urban ization Working Status During the Week Before Interview Full Tune Part Time Not Working Retired Total Nation 0.90 1.14 1.37 0.71 1 00 Rural 0.23 0.51 0.38 0.36 0 32 Small Town 0.27 0.17 0.21 0.40 0.26 Suburb 0.49 0.53 0.40 0.26 0.45 SeeondCiry 0.43 0 .66 0.91 030 0.54 Urban 2 .42 3 .14 3.25 1.92 2.64 Source: Pmoa F ile IDd T ravd Day File. Figure C-9. Propensity for Transit Use by Urbani zation and Working Status. I 4 D oPartTime -3 Not Working ----- Retired 2 .2 ----------?;> 8. I 0 Natim RU!al Small TO\Io1l Suburb SecoodCity Urban Urbaniz:afun Source: Table C.

PAGE 151

C-11 Table C-10. Propeos ity for Traosit Use by MSA Popu12tioo aad Rate. MSA Population Race (l,OOO s) White Black Others Total Nation 0.58 2.73 1.28 1.00 OutsideMSA 0.45 0 36 0.02 0 42 Under 250 0 .32 0.88 0.83 0 .41 250-499 0 .16 0.70 0.54 0 27 500-999 0.24 1.24 0.83 0 .45 I 000-2,999 0.29 1.67 0 .23 0.47 3,0 00 + 0.93 3.59 1.81 1.60 Sowcc: Pttsoa File l."ld Travd Dq Fik. Figure C-10. Propensity for Transit Use by MSA Population aod Rate. 4 ., ::::> "' 3 ., c I .. :::: NatX>n OursO: Under 250 250-499 5()().999 1,000-2.999 3,000 + MSA MSA Popllatixl (I,OOOs) Soura:: Table ClO.

PAGE 152

C-12 Table C-1 1 PropeMity for TraD.Sil Use by Urbaaizatioa aad Race. Urbanization Race White Black Others Total Nation 0 .58 2.73 1.26 1.00 Rural 0.47 0.05 0.22 0.42 Small Town 0.27 0.66 0.18 0.29 Suburb 0.38 1.37 0.34 0.48 Second City 0.35 1.24 0.85 0.54 Urban 1.59 4 4 7 2 .64 2 .64 Figure CU Propeasity ror Traasit Use by Urbanization aad Race 5 Black II 4 ::> "' 3 It= i 2 ------------... c l ... I 0 Naron Rural Small Town Suburb Second City Urban Urbanization Soutcc: Table C ll.

PAGE 153

C-13 Tabl e C-12. Propensity for Transit Use by MSA Population and Ethnicity MSA Population E thnicity (I,OOOs) Hi spanic Non-Hispanic Total Nation 1.41 0 .94 1.00 Outside MSA 0 59 0.38 0.40 Under250 0.83 0.38 0 4 1 250-499 0.67 0 22 0.26 500 999 0 2 3 0.47 0 45 I ,000-2,999 0 26 0.49 0 .47 3 ,000 + 1.96 1.53 1.59 Soul'(e: Pers<>n File and T ravel Day file. Figure C-12 Propensity for Transit Use by MSA Population and Etboicity 2 oHispanic : .0 I I -' 1 2 Q.. 0 -!--1.Nation Outside U nder 250 250-499 MSA 500-999 1 ,000-2,999 3,000 + MSA Population (I,OOOs) Sourte: Table Cl2

PAGE 154

C-14 Table C-13. Propensity for Transit Use by Urbanizat ion and Etbnicity. Urbanizatio n Ethnicity H i spanic Non Hispanic Total N at ion 1 .40 0 95 l.OO Rural 0 .87 0.37 0.41 Small Town 0 .11 0.29 0.28 Suburb 0.39 0.48 0 .47 Secon d City 0 .64 0 .5 3 0.54 Urban 2 .69 2 .6 2 2. 63 Soutce: Person F i l e and Travel Day File, Figure C -13 Propensity for Transit Use by Urbanization and Etbnicity .--------10 --------------0 Nation Rura l Small Town Suburb Second City Urban U r banization Source: Table C-13.

PAGE 155

Table C-14. Propensity for Transit Use by MSA Population and Househ old Income. MSA Population Household Income ( l,OOOs) Under $15,000 $15,000-$49,999 $50,000 + N ation 2.31 0.92 0.63 Outside MSA 0.52 0.45 0.31 Under 250 0 77 0.31 0.36 250-49 9 0.93 0.11 0.10 500999 0.88 0.47 0.19 1 ,000-2,999 1.89 0.31 0.24 3,000 + '6' J. J 1.67 0.97 Sowcc:: Puson File and Travel Day File. Figure C-14. Propensity for Transit Use by MSA Population and Household Income. 4 ,----------_;0 I 'J> m ooo.$49,999 3 -------_ i $So,ooo + e f-.t8 2 l l 1 0... 1-------------------C-15 Total 1.00 0.43 0.41 0.24 0.42 0.48 1.61 I o Nation Outside Under 250 250-499 SOD-999 1,000-2,999 3,000 + MSA MSA Population (I,OOOs) SOU1ce: Table C-l4.

PAGE 156

C-1 6 Table C-15. Propensity for T ransit Ue by Urbanizat i on and Household Income. Urbaniza tion H o usehold In co me Under $15,000 $15,000-$49,999 $50, 000 + Total N a ti o n 2.30 0.9 3 0.63 1.00 Rural 0 .25 0.34 0.72 0.42 Small Town 0.35 0.30 0.27 0 .2 9 S uburb 1.12 0.38 0.43 0 .45 Secon d C ity 1.17 0.38 0.38 0 .53 Urb an 4.59 2.62 1.54 2.67 Figure C-15. Propensity for Transit Use by U r banization a ad H ousehol d Income. I I 5 ,---------10 UJXler $15,000 4 I 3 .= 1.$1 2 I .$50,000+ 2 8. I I o N ation Rural SmaUTown Suburb Second City Urban Urbanization Source: Table ClS.

PAGE 157

Table C 16. Prop e n sity for Transit Us e by MSA Population and Vehicle Ownership. MSA Populafion Vehicle Owncl'$hip (l,OOOs ) Zero-Vehicle One-Vehicle MultiVehicl e Na t io n 5.94 1.13 034 OutsideMSA 1.77 0.4 6 0.31 Under250 2.88 0.52 0.23 250-499 2.57 0.22 0.09 500-999 3.19 0.80 0.12 I ,00 0-2,999 3.73 0.50 0.18 3,000 + 7 .24 1.68 0 .52 Souroc:: PerSon file and Tl'l\'d O&y File. Figure C-16. Propensity for Transit Use by MSA Population and Veblcle Ownership. ::::> -;;; "' .E >. -;;; j.l: 8 6 4 2 0 Home holds One-Vehicle Househokls 1 I Multi,. Vehicle Hou
PAGE 158

Table C-17. Propensity for TNosit Use by Urbanlutioo and Vehicle Ownership. Urbaniza tion Vehicle Ownership ZeroV chicles One-Vehicle Multi-Vehicle Nation 5.93 1.13 0.34 Rural 1.03 0.36 0.39 Small Town 1.11 0.30 0.25 Suburb 2.37 0 .84 0.30 Seco nd C ity 3 .33 0.57 0.22 Urban 7.77 2.18 0 .65 S 6 -c;; c: .e 4 ,... ;;; 2 0 0 Zer
PAGE 159

Table C-18. Propensity for Transit Use by MSA P opulation and Home Ownership. MSA Population Home Ov.11ership (l,OOOs) Home Owner R e nter Nation 0.55 2.00 Outside MSA 0.36 0.56 Under250 0.34 0.57 250-499 0 .16 0.55 500-999 0.28 0.88 I ,000 2,999 0.29 0 .93 3,000 + 0.84 2.95 Source. : Person Fil e and Tra, el Day F i l e Figure C-18. Propensity for Trans it Use by MSA Population and Home Ownership. 3 oHome Renter Total 1.00 0 4 1 0.41 0.26 0.45 0.47 1.60 -------------.. ----------; -------------0-!-'-Nation Outside U nder 250 250-499 500-999 1,000-2,999 3,000+ MSA MSA Population (i,OOOs) Souroe: Tabl e C-1 8 C-19 I I I I I

PAGE 160

Table C-19. Propensity for Transit Use by Urbanization and Home Ownership. Urbanization Home Ownership HomeOwner Renter Tota l Nation o.ss 2.00 1.00 Rural 0.43 0.31 0.41 Sma ,ll Town 0.25 0.44 0.28 Suburb 0.36 0.86 0.47 Second City 0.34 0 .8 9 0.54 U rban 1.44 3.93 2.63 Sousce: Pet$0n File and Travel Day File. Figure C-19. Propensity for Transit Use by Urbanization and Home Ownership. 4 ReDler ::> 3 + -.. -------. ------------------.t: 2 +--.. ..!2 8_ I +-Naoon Source: Table C-1 9. Rural Small Town Suburb Second City U rban U rbanization C-20

PAGE 161

Table C-20. Propensity for Transit Use by MSA P opulalion aod L ife Cycle MSA Populati on Life Cyc le ( I ,OOOs) Sing le A dult Households Multi-Adult Households Tota l Natio n 1.66 0.85 1.00 Outside MSA 0.41 0.40 0.4 1 Under 250 0 8 5 0.30 0.41 250-499 0.30 0.26 0 .26 5 00 999 0.64 0.40 0.45 1 000,999 1.13 0.31 0.46 3 000 + 2.52 1.38 1.59 Fig ure C-20. Propensity for Transit Use by MSA Population and Life Cycle. 3 0 2 -!----- Multi-Adult Households ... .8 I I I o.. o -f---L-1 Outside MSA Under 250 250-499 500-999 1,000-2,999 3 ,000 + MSA Population (l,OOOs) Source: Table C-20. C-21 I

PAGE 162

C-22 Table C-21. Prope llSity for Transit Use b y U rbaaiutioa and Life Cycle. Urbaniza ti on LifeC)'el e Single-Adult H o useh olds Multi Adult Households T otal Nation 1.67 0.85 1.00 Rural 0.42 0.41 0.41 Small Town 0.31 0.28 0.28 Suburb 0.59 0.45 0 .47 Second City 0.76 0.48 0 .54 U rban 3.8 1 2.25 2.63 Figu r e C-21. P r opensity for T ransit Use by Urbanization and L ife Cycle 4 ,---------10 Households 1----------, Multi-Adult Households --------Nafun Rural SrnaiJ Town Suburb Second City Urban Urbanization Source: Table C 2 1

PAGE 163

Table C-22. Propensity for Transit Use by MSA P opulation and Housing Density. MSA Residential Housing Densi ty in Units per Square Mile Population (l,OOOs) Under 50 50-249 250-999 1,000-1,999 2 ,000 + Nation 0.35 0.31 0.39 0.46 1.73 Outside MSA 0.52 0 3 1 0.57 0.20 0.40 Under250 0 .13 0.19 0.45 0.45 0 .50 250-499 0 .15 0. 1 6 0.13 0.30 0 44 500-999 0.43 0. 1 8 0 26 0.26 0.79 1 ,000-2,999 0.36 0 .15 0 .25 0 .27 0.78 3 000 + 0.26 0.57 0.54 0 .66 2.32 SoufQC: PerSon Flle Travel Day File. Fig ure C-22 Propensity for Transit U se by MSA Pop ulation and Housing Density 3 -r----------1-Under 50 2 -------I .250-999 .... _l I 000-1.999f---- 2,000+ --.. -----C-23 Total 1.00 0.4 1 0 39 0 27 0.45 0.47 1.60 Nation Outsile Under 250 250-499 500-999 1 ,000-2,999 3,000 + l\.1SA MSA Population ( l,OOOs) Soure: Table

PAGE 164

C-24 Table C-23. ror Transit Use by Urbaoization and HoiUiDg DeDSity. Urba niution Residentia l Housing Density in Units per Square Mile Under SO S0-249 250-999 1 000 1 999 2 000 + Total Nation 0.35 0.31 0.39 0.46 1.73 1.00 Rural 0.34 0.34 1.43 0.00 0.00 0 .41 Small Town 0.34 0.26 0.27 0.18 0.53 0 28 S uburb 0 .01 0.43 0.36 0.48 0.55 0.47 Second City 0 .31 0.24 0.46 0.41 0.72 0 .5 4 Urban 2.24 1.52 0.56 0 .72 2.89 2.63 Sourct: Person FiJe and Day F11c. Figu r e C-23. Propen s ity for Trans i t Use by Urbaoizadon and Hou sing Den sity. 3 Under 50 "' ;:::! .250-999 -.. l 2 ---. 2,000+ .... 0 >. I -[ ---NatiJn Rural Small Town Sulu'b SecODd City Urban Sourcc: TabkC-23.

PAGE 165

C-25 T able C -24. P r opensity for Transit Use by MSA Population and Population Density. MSA Population Density in Persons per Square Mile Popu l ation (l,OOOs) Under 500 500-1,999 2,000-3 999 4,000-9,999 1 0,000 + Total Nation 0 .30 0.38 0.49 0.63 3.06 1.00 Outs ideMSA 0.43 0.64 0 .23 0 .29 0. 1 7 0.41 Under250 0 17 0.42 0 60 0.41 0 39 0 .3 9 250-499 0.17 0 05 0.38 0.36 0.54 0.27 500-999 0 .16 0.33 0.27 0 52 1.45 0.45 J 000-2 999 0.25 0.14 0 .36 0.52 1.22 0.47 3,000 + 0 37 0.60 0 .66 0.78 3.48 1.60 Source: Penon File and lra"el Oay file Figure C-24 Propensity f o r Transi t Use by MSA Population and Population Density. 4 .---------i 0 Under 500 !---------------., os00-1 ,999 _______ ; ---------' 4,000-9,9991 ---110,000+ ------------Nation Outside Under 250 250-499 500-999 1,000-2,999 3,000 + MSA MSA Population(l,OOOs) Source: Table C24.

PAGE 166

C-26 Table C-25. Propensity for Transit Use by Urbanization and Population D ensity. Urbanization Population Density in P ersons per Square Mile Unde r 500 500-1 ,999 2 ,000-3,999 4,000-9,999 10,000 + Tota l Nation 0.30 0.38 0.49 0.63 3 .06 1.00 Rural 0.34 1.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.41 Small Town 0 .21 0.33 0.26 0.41 0 .05 0.28 Suburb 0.40 0.29 0.50 0.48 0.81 0.47 Second C ity 0 .30 0 .44 0.51 0.49 1.16 0.54 Urban 1.74 1.08 0.66 1.08 3 .77 2 .63 Souree: Penon fi l e and iraveiDay fi l e Figure C-ZS. Prop e n si t y for Transit Use by Urba n ization and Population Density. 4 oUnder 500 "' o500-I,999 ;:l -3 -"' 2 .10,000+ 0 >-'" "' 5 0.. 0 "" I 0 Nation Rural Small Town Suburb Second City Urban Urbanization Souroe: Table C.

PAGE 167

C 27 Table C-26. Propensity for Transit Use by MSA Population and Employme n t Dens i ty. MSA Work Site Employment Density in Jobs per Square Mile Popula t ion (I,OOOs) Under 50 50-499 500 1,999 2,000-9,999 10,000 + Total Nation 0 34 0.25 0.42 0.78 3.07 1.00 OutsideMSA 0.49 0 .13 0 25 0.15 0 .26 0.29 Under250 0. 1 9 0.43 0.62 0.0 1 0 .60 0.39 250-499 0.00 0.00 0 08 0.06 0 .37 0,07 500-999 0.00 0 .09 0 36 0.17 1.57 0.41 1,000-2 999 0 16 0 .09 0.24 0.38 1.03 0.40 3,000 + 0.72 0.45 0.58 1.19 4.29 1.71 Source: Pers<>n File and l'ta\'tl Oay Fit c . Figure C-26 Propensity for Transit Use by MSA Population aod Empl oym ent Densi ty. 5 Under 50 050-499 I I __ .. -----------------12; --__ _ _______ 1----.. --+ I -----------------"' :::::> 4 --"' c 3 ..... 0 >-, 2 ::: "' ii I Q, 0 ;:... 0 Naoon Outside Under 250 250-499 5()()..999 1 ,000-2;999 3,000 + MSA MSA Populatoo (J,OOOs) Source: Table C-26.

PAGE 168

Table C-27. Pro pensity for Transit Use by Urbanization and Empl o yment Density Urbanization Work Site Employment Density in Jobs per Square Mile Under SO 50-499 500-1,999 2 ,000-9 ,999 10,000 + Nation 0 .33 0.25 0.42 0.76 3 .09 Rur al 0.42 0.19 0.27 0 .89 0 3 4 Small Town 0.1 6 0.12 0.33 0.32 1.10 Suburb 0.62 0.18 0.33 0.26 1.71 Second City 0.27 0.33 0.34 0.24 1.66 Urban 1.18 0.75 0.92 1.91 4.88 So urce: PffS()n F i l e and Travel Day f'i 1 e. Figure C-2 7. Propensity for Transit Use by Urbanization and Employment Density ::5 ;;; I C: '"" ,'-, o "' 5 0. 0 ll':: 5 4 3 2 I 0 ,.--------1 D Under 50 0s0-499 5()0.1,999 -'. 2,000-9,999l ---,_,, ... --------. 1 10,000+ i C-28 Tota l 1.00 0.38 0.31 0.52 0.47 2.76 Nation Rural Small Town Suburb Second C ity U rban Urbani2ation Sour:: Table Cl1.

PAGE 169

C-29 Table C-28 Propensity for Transi t Use by MSA Pop ul a tion and Prox imity to Transit Sto p s. MSA Proximity of Residence to T ransit Stops Population (l,OOOs) Within One One Block-Quarter Mile-Half Mile-Beyond One Total Block Quarter Mile Half Mile One Mil e Mile Nation 1.69 1.27 0.71 0.38 0.1 6 1.00 Outside MSA 0.30 0.16 0.27 O.o9 O.o? 0.17 Under250 0 .4 6 0 .63 0 38 0.31 0 09 0.35 250 499 0 .59 0.32 O.o3 0.23 0 02 0.26 500 0 .82 0.35 0 27 0.21 0.05 0.41 I ,0002,999 0 76 0.58 0.36 0 .31 0.06 0.48 3,000 + 2.58 1.86 1.09 0.52 0 37 1.62 Souroe: PerSon file and fuve:l Day .File. Figure C-28. Propensity f o r Transit Use b y MSA P o p ula tion and Proximity to Transit S t ops 3 -.--------l D Within One Block Nation Sour : T01blt CS. Outsi1e MSA DOne Block-Quarter Mile Quarter Mile-Half Mile Halfl'vfde-One Mile 1-----Beyorxl One Mile Urxler 250 250-499 500.999 MSA Population (!,OOOs) 1,000.2,999 3,000+

PAGE 170

C-30 Table C-29 Propensity for Transit Use by Urba niza tion and Proximity to Transit Stops. Urban ization Pro ximi ty of Residence to Transit Stops W i thin One One Blo ck-Quarter Mile Half MileBeyond One Tota l Block Quarter Mile Half Mile One Mile Mile N ation 1.69 1.28 0 7 1 0 .37 0.16 1.00 Rural 0 04 0.00 0.24 0.02 0.14 0 .1 2 Small Town 0 .27 0.54 O.o9 0.15 0 06 0. 1 5 Suburb 0.69 0.39 0 .4 2 0 .37 0 .20 0.45 Second City 0 .84 0 .4 5 0.47 0.22 0 09 0.53 Urban 3.35 2 .74 1 8 1 0 95 1.56 2.71 Sourec. : Person F il e and Tra,el Day Fil e. Fig ore C 29. P rope nsity for Trausi t Use b y Urbanization and Proximity to Transit Stops. 4 D Wtthin One Block 1.l DOne Block-Quarter Mile :::> 3 Quarte r Mile-Half :Mile -;;; Half Mile-One :Mile c e i2 Beyond One Mile ..... --0 l;> 8. e .... I 0 Nation Rural Small Town Suburb Second City Urban Urbanization Souroc. : Table C-29.

PAGE 171

C -31 Tab le C-30. Propensity for T ransit Use by MSA Populat i on and F requency of Use. MSA Frequency of U s e in the Two Month before Interview Population (I,OOOs) Two or More About Once a Once or Twice a Less Than Once Total Times a Week Week Mont h a Month Na t ion 1.88 0 .64 0.24 0.09 1.00 Outside MSA 0.51 0 .17 0.21 0.24 0 .33 Under250 1.44 O.o! 0.14 0 .05 0.58 250 0.99 0.76 O.Q7 0 00 0 .47 500-999 1.63 0 .54 0.15 0.04 0.74 1,000-2, 999 1.53 0 .37 0.16 0 06 0.62 3,000 + 2.02 0 76 0.28 0.10 1.17 Sour: PerSon File and Travel D a y File. Figure C-30. Propens ity for T ransit Use by MSA Population and F requency of Use. 3 0 Two or More Times a I ., 0 About Once a Week ;:l - Once or Twice a Month 1-., 2 --.. ---.. Less Than Once a Month r .... I '-r I 0 I >. I I v; p. ---. ---.. I t:: I '&, ]._ f-e r-l._ 11.. Q., ta 0 Nation Outside U nder250 250-499 500-999 I ,000-2,999 3,000+ MSA MSA Population (J,OOOs) Source: Table CJO.

PAGE 172

C-32 T able C-31. Propensity fo r Tra nsit Use by Urbanization aod Frequ ency o f U se. Urbanization Frequency of Use in the Two Months before Interview Two or More About Once a Once or Twice a Less Than Once Total Times a Week Week Month a Month Nation 1.87 0 64 0 .24 0.09 1.00 Ru r al 0.21 0.13 0 .01 0.20 0.15 Small Town 0.4 2 0 17 0.17 0.06 0.21 Suburb 1.34 0 .69 0.13 0.08 0 .55 Second City 1.48 0.49 0.15 0,07 0.67 Urban 2.22 0 .73 0.40 0.11 1.46 Source: Person F ile and Travc. J D a y File. F igure C-31. Propensity fo r Transi t Use by Urbanization and Frequency of Use. 3 About Oooe a Week Oooe or T wice a Month Less Than Once a JVronth 0 +-'--'Nation Rural Small Town Suburb Second City Urban Urbanization Source: Table C -31.