Per capita transit ridership in Interior West cities

[TakeFive]

The (only) one thing I would give Phoenix an atta boy for is that their one LRT line may be the busiest. Using per capita numbers distorts that as Phoenix is like 2 1/2 times the size of Denver (for example) but their LRT only serves a slice of the city. It's more of a fancy trolley as most of the route is urban, except for a stretch going east from downtown into Tempe. Lots of stops though. It's virtually the opposite of what Denver does. A good number of students will use it as they may have classes in both Tempe and downtown Phoenix.

[kidboise]

Haha, no surprise from this Boisean. Mass transit here is the worst thing ever. On the other hand, I bike to work more days per year than I drive, and I'm sure I am not alone.

[Hatman]

Originally Posted by s.p.hansen

But we have a secret weapon. Our more conservative state still has an appetite to raise taxes and we're out of a recession. Round two of streetcar, and light rail downtown and lots of new BRTs around the metro is drawing near. We are also getting close to raising the gas tax.

As for secret weapons that make a difference, I see things like the Farepay (pre-paid) card and the HIVE pass along with switch to distance based fares* as more effective in terms of building ridership. In many cases along the whole Wasatch Front the transit options are already there - people just need to be more aware and more willing to use them. Other operational things like longer service hours and better frequency will also do amazing things to ridership.

*http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politic...-fare.html.csp

New routes and mode options like BRT and Streetcars will certainly generate more riders in their service areas, but in order for SLC to compete with the massive FastTracks project in Denver, a lot more people are going to have to use the existing transit options. A BRT route replacing an already popular bus route in Provo simply cannot bring in as many new riders as a all-new rapid transit connection between Downtown Denver and its airport (not to mention the many other lines about to open soon).

My prediction long-term is that SLC and Denver will still remain mostly neck-and-neck, but traded places with Denver just a few points ahead of SLC. The city's core and its culture just seem to me more urban and transit focused than the SLC area.

[s.p.hansen]

Originally Posted by Hatman

As for secret weapons that make a difference, I see things like the Farepay (pre-paid) card and the HIVE pass along with switch to distance based fares* as more effective in terms of building ridership. In many cases along the whole Wasatch Front the transit options are already there - people just need to be more aware and more willing to use them. Other operational things like longer service hours and better frequency will also do amazing things to ridership.

*http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politic...-fare.html.csp

New routes and mode options like BRT and Streetcars will certainly generate more riders in their service areas, but in order for SLC to compete with the massive FastTracks project in Denver, a lot more people are going to have to use the existing transit options. A BRT route replacing an already popular bus route in Provo simply cannot bring in as many new riders as a all-new rapid transit connection between Downtown Denver and its airport (not to mention the many other lines about to open soon).

My prediction long-term is that SLC and Denver will still remain mostly neck-and-neck, but traded places with Denver just a few points ahead of SLC. The city's core and its culture just seem to me more urban and transit focused than the SLC area.

I'm gonna tread very carefully here because I'd rather this be a convo with the Denver folks than dick slapping contest. So with that preface I will say this. Denver has some massive advantages because it went the route of many cities and annexed the entire county. It was able to create a tax that upgraded its sports facilities to top tier status and bump up its arts game. One behalf of SLC I will say we are jelly. But...when it comes to pressures with transit priorities in Denver that have been shapped because of this annexation, I find it something undesirable for us in our metro. Therefore I disagree with your point of take off in your explanation that we need to compete with FastTracks.

Let me expound. Reading through the Denver threads there seems to be a frustration that actual transit in downtown and urban style or urban potential Denver is being de-prioritized in favor for greater park and ride style suburban transit projects pinwheeling out from the core. This is gonna cost several times more than what Frontlines cost us. Obviously part of this is just configuration of the sprawl too. But I think it's pretty great that we have one single commuter rail line that every metro is responsible to build better transit around.

Because Salt Lake City is so small in area (we are talking about a single commuter rail corridor of 4 counties), it doesn't have to play ball with some big regional plan unless it gets local transit improvements it wants like an extension of its sugar house streetcar and two new streetcars downtown along with a light rail loop downtown from the Intermodal Hub up to 4th South.

It looks like if we were to make another Frontlines style tax pot for a project we'd have a BRT in Provo-Orem, a BRT in south salt lake county, a BRT from Salt Lake City to Davis a County, and a BRT from Ogden at the FrontRunner Station to Weber State Unversity up there. And you know Salt Lake City is gonna get more than its fair share of what it wants (probably at least 2/4 streetcar or lightrail improvements. And this would be much cheaper than Frontlines 2015 (each BRT is probably gonna be 75 million).

Anyway, our building around the existing commuter rail line to make better transit in each of these segments up the narrow metro excites me and I'm excited by the political clout Salt Lake City has so it can demand more than its fair share of transit funding in non suburban parts of the city. Am I jealous of the massive central collecting point of transit that Denver has with its new Union Station, you bet I am. Will we ever have anything like that in SLC, probably not. But by the time much of FastTracks gets done we're gonna have more of our non suburban part of SLC accomedated by convenient transit than Denver. And we're gonna see better access to transit up and down the metro in the suburbs as well for a fraction of the price.

So I'm interested in seeing what our metro can do with under a billion in increasing our average person's yearly ridership in say 10 years when compared to 10 more years of FastTracks in Denver. Like you said, I'm pretty sure it's gonna be neck and neck.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by s.p.hansen

Denver has some massive advantages because it went the route of many cities and annexed the entire county.

To clarify, Denver didn't annex the rest of the county, a' la, say, Phoenix. Denver was already a consolidated City & County early in its history. What happened was that (anti-urban) voters constitutionally restricted further annexations by Denver, which locked its boundaries overnight. Very different result - Denver didn't spread to fill its boundaries, like many western cities. Its boundaries were already full. (With the exception of the airport annexation, which gave Denver some limited greenfield development options - but that took three elections to approve, which isn't practical for 99.9% of annexations a City would otherwise undertake.)

Originally Posted by s.p.hansen

It was able to create a tax that upgraded its sports facilities to top tier status and bump up its arts game.

These are actually multi-county regional taxes, all approved by metro-wide voters. Still a great thing, but an example of regional cooperation, not anything Denver has done on its own.

Originally Posted by s.p.hansen

Reading through the Denver threads there seems to be a frustration that actual transit in downtown and urban style or urban potential Denver is being de-prioritized in favor for greater park and ride style suburban transit projects pinwheeling out from the core.

All true. The endgame for Denver likely involves a second overlapping transit agency that is City-serving.

Originally Posted by s.p.hansen

So I'm interested in seeing what our metro can do with under a billion in increasing our average person's yearly ridership in say 10 years when compared to 10 more years of FastTracks in Denver. Like you said, I'm pretty sure it's gonna be neck and neck.

I think Denver's transit ridership will be directly proportional to two things: (1) poverty, like transit always is, and (2) the strength of downtown as an employment center. If Denver can find a way to reign in some of the suburban employment growth, and channel more of that back downtown, transit ridership will grow. If it can't, ridership will quickly plateau, albeit at a much higher level than today. You can only get to 100% mode share for downtown commuters; after that, you have to find someplace else to grow ridership. And Fastracks is not a system structured such that it will transform the day-to-day transportation lives of many people.

Originally Posted by Hatman

As for secret weapons that make a difference, I see things like the Farepay (pre-paid) card

God help us, SLC has fare cards. Literally, God, please help us. It'll take divine intervention for RTD to figure out fare cards. Somewhere in some developing country, a transit manager is reading this and laughing at the fact that a major U.S. transit agency still hasn't figured out fare cards. It's a running joke, actually, in this remote third world city - don't do things all "Denver-ey," they say, when describing institutional incompetence.

[DenverInfill]

Interesting analysis, s.p. hansen.

First, a point of clarification regarding your statement: "Denver has some massive advantages because it went the route of many cities and annexed the entire county."

The consolidation of the City of Denver and a bunch of small adjacent towns and some unincorporated areas into the City and County of Denver occurred in 1902. And while the city did annex territory on its edges in the 1950s through the early 1970s, it hasn't annexed any territory (except for DIA) since 1974 due to state constitutional restrictions. The main 100 square miles of Denver proper (excluding DIA), roughly a 10 mile x 10 mile square, represents only about 6% of the total "urbanized area" (per census definitions) land area of the Denver-Aurora-Boulder metro area, which covers approximately 1,800 square miles.

The City of Salt Lake City covers 110 square miles, or approximately 15%, of an "urbanized area" land area of 720 square miles for the Salt Lake City-West Valley City metro area. Therefore, the City of SLC covers a larger percentage of its metro's land area than does the City and County of Denver cover of its metro's land area.

I think where metro land area enters the discussion of transit, is that RTD operates at a super-regional scale, with a service area that covers 2,337 square miles! Thus, we have FasTracks that provides service to this vast area with lines designed to connect the outer suburbs in all directions to the urban core. While that is totally fine and necessary, RTD's system is so large in scale that it leaves parts of Denver proper that are fairly dense without any rail-based transit and only decent bus service. Consequently, the city is starting to look at developing a network of enhanced transit services (streetcar, BRT, branded shuttles) for the urban core that would provide a finer-grain level of transit service than that offered by RTD.

The issue is scale. If Denver metro covered half the size that it does (about SLC metro size) then perhaps a transit system like FasTracks could do double duty: it could be both the regional transit system connecting the suburbs to the city while also providing the urban core the finer-grained level of transit it needs. Unfortunately, that's not the case in Denver. Therefore, Denver needs two scales of transit systems: a regional scale transit system and an urban core transit system. Certainly those two systems should be seamlessly integrated and indistinguishable to the user, but politically, in Denver, they will likely be developed by different entities and under different funding mechanisms.

[DenverInfill]

oh, bunt and I just posted many of the same points!

One other thought...

Since the transit ridership per capita numbers include all forms of transit (bus and rail), I would think that when the line to DIA opens, that will definitely give Denver a bump up. In some cases, the addition of a new rail transit line simply replaces a lot of bus transit trips and induces only a small amount of new ridership because trains are sexier than buses. That will still be the case with the line to DIA, in that some of the line's ridership will simply replace those currently taking the bus to DIA. However, I think the line to DIA will induce a lot of new transit riders (tourists, conventioneers, etc.) that currently do not ride RTD's bus from DIA to Downtown, but will definitely take the train to Union Station when it opens in about 20 months.

[PHX31]

Thanks for posting this. I glanced over the article on fivethirtyeight and saw the numbers and had some questions. Maybe you (cirrus) or otherwise can explain. What exactly were the population numbers used to determine each city's per capita? The city of Phoenix is so large, it never seems to get a fair comparison when determining stuff like this or pop density. Also, comparing all cities seems silly to me and I kind of blew off the article. Comparing Phoenix and Flagstaff on almost any measure is nonsense.

TakeFive, can you elaborate on what you mean Phoenix's light rail is basically a trolley? It connects the downtowns of 3 of our metro area's biggest cities (Phoenix (also midtown), Tempe, and mesa), and serves and connects several points of interest and population areas. It basically turned into our old red bus line (busiest in the city) on steroids. Seems good to me and more than a novelty like you inferred.

I do like fivethirtyeight for the most part. I just can't wait for their finale of the best burrito in America. That's taking forever.

[s.p.hansen]

Originally Posted by DenverInfill

Interesting analysis, s.p. hansen.

First, a point of clarification regarding your statement: "Denver has some massive advantages because it went the route of many cities and annexed the entire county."

The main 100 square miles of Denver proper (excluding DIA), roughly a 10 mile x 10 mile square, represents only about 6% of the total "urbanized area" (per census definitions) land area of the Denver-Aurora-Boulder metro area, which covers approximately 1,800 square miles.

The City of Salt Lake City covers 110 square miles, or approximately 15%, of an "urbanized area" land area of 720 square miles for the Salt Lake City-West Valley City metro area. Therefore, the City of SLC covers a larger percentage of its metro's land area than does the City and County of Denver cover of its metro's land area.

You and Bunt blew my mind with this; so basically yeah, the opposite of what I assumed where your actual city proper is so small in a sea of sprawl that they get what they want in RTD. That's the position I've always painted the struggles in SLC with. So yeah, comparing our metros in that regard is more apples to apples than apples to oranges.

Originally Posted by DenverInfill

I think where metro land area enters the discussion of transit, is that RTD operates at a super-regional scale, with a service area that covers 2,337 square miles! Thus, we have FasTracks that provides service to this vast area with lines designed to connect the outer suburbs in all directions to the urban core. While that is totally fine and necessary, RTD's system is so large in scale that it leaves parts of Denver proper that are fairly dense without any rail-based transit and only decent bus service. Consequently, the city is starting to look at developing a network of enhanced transit services (streetcar, BRT, branded shuttles) for the urban core that would provide a finer-grain level of transit service than that offered by RTD.

The issue is scale. If Denver metro covered half the size that it does (about SLC metro size) then perhaps a transit system like FasTracks could do double duty: it could be both the regional transit system connecting the suburbs to the city while also providing the urban core the finer-grained level of transit it needs. Unfortunately, that's not the case in Denver. Therefore, Denver needs two scales of transit systems: a regional scale transit system and an urban core transit system. Certainly those two systems should be seamlessly integrated and indistinguishable to the user, but politically, in Denver, they will likely be developed by different entities and under different funding mechanisms.

RTD and UTA sound similar enough. UTA was an aggressive Salt Lake Proper bus company that bought out all the metro counties bus companies and we're now seeing it lose more interest in conventional busses and it's becoming a well oiled machine at getting federal dollars and building fairly inexpensive rail and BRT. I think the regional vs downtown struggle is alive in the Salt Lake City metro, but perhaps our politics are more aligned right now in favor of more investment downtown. But also the scale of our big expansion projects are just smaller too. So we're talking like 1.5 billion for Frontlines 2015 that finished fast in a few years. When I look at FastTracks the modes of transit are far more ambitious and the scale is massive (as it was originally passed). So again tell me how far off base I am here, but don't you think Denver could have secured more downtown transit if I took smaller bites with bigger regional projects than trying to eat the whole elephant with FastTracks? I mean, at the end of the day if much of this is built out by 2030 or whatever and in that time Denver can find a way to separately fund and build its own more local transit options, then it would all make for a very favorable situation for Denver as its CBD expands. So that would still be an awesome outcome.

The big fear I have with UTA is that it will get bogged down in its own success. We are a Red State that sees the value of developing new roads for more cars alongside transit options as we expand in our sprawl. And it's great people here see the value of transit. But when every new suburb is getting planners from UTA in to help them get on the wish list of expansions, I have to wonder how much longer our regional cooperation will stick it out in raising taxes for transit. As long as Salt Lake City gets more than its fair share of pie it will probably grumble less out assisting in the creation of new sprawl. But there are already sentiments brewing that Salt Lake City should split off UTA for more local transit needs. And if UTA is smart they will keep throwing us exta steaks to eat ahead of the other dogs during feeding time.

It will all be very interesting to see what happens because RTD and UTA are such great examples of good regional transit builders.

[SLC Projects]

I will be really pissed if this damn gas tax gets raised. I'm not paying 4 dollars per gallon!

[DenverInfill]

Originally Posted by s.p.hansen

So again tell me how far off base I am here, but don't you think Denver could have secured more downtown transit if I took smaller bites with bigger regional projects than trying to eat the whole elephant with FastTracks? I mean, at the end of the day if much of this is built out by 2030 or whatever and in that time Denver can find a way to separately fund and build its own more local transit options, then it would all make for a very favorable situation for Denver as its CBD expands. So that would still be an awesome outcome.

To answer your question: not necessarily. With its regional focus and given that 80% of the taxpayers in the RTD district live outside of the City and County of Denver, we shouldn't assume that Denver's urban core would have gotten more transit if the FasTracks regional plan wasn't as ambitious. The suburbs know that Denver deserves to some degree a disproportional share of transit investments given that downtown is in Denver and almost all of the transit lines converge there (and is the state capital, the largest employment center, and the economic and cultural hub of the region). But that doesn't mean the suburbs are going to want to fund streetcars and other transit investments that would be viewed as primarily serving only Denver residents.

Politics aside, if RTD had focused first on the city and built a bunch of Denver-centric transit, we'd then be in a position where we're wringing our hands over the lack of regional, suburb-to-city transit. Instead, it happened the other way around. Now, as the regional-scale transit is well on its way to being (mostly) finished, we're focusing on the smaller scale Denver-centric transit--except the "we" doing that focusing is really just the City at this point. There might come a time down the road when metro voters would be willing to invest in more transit in the urban core, but that's a big if.

[s.p.hansen]

Originally Posted by SLC Projects

I will be really pissed if this damn gas tax gets raised. I'm not paying 4 dollars per gallon!

It's called inflation, boo. We gots to do this. If we get a big correction with wages to inflation, it won't bite.

Remember, the gas tax isn't like other taxes, we aren't talking about higher percentages but rather raising it a set amount of cents per gallon. When you have a tax like that it needs to be adjusted for inflation. The Federal and State government hasn't raised it since the early 90's. It's time.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by SLC Projects

I will be really pissed if this damn gas tax gets raised. I'm not paying 4 dollars per gallon!

[kidboise]

Originally Posted by SLC Projects

I will be really pissed if this damn gas tax gets raised. I'm not paying 4 dollars per gallon!

This comment is adorable.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by PHX31

TakeFive, can you elaborate on what you mean Phoenix's light rail is basically a trolley? It connects the downtowns of 3 of our metro area's biggest cities (Phoenix (also midtown), Tempe, and mesa), and serves and connects several points of interest and population areas. It basically turned into our old red bus line (busiest in the city) on steroids. Seems good to me and more than a novelty like you inferred.

I meant no negative connotation. I actually stated "fancy trolley" and isn't trolly a global term for legitimate transit? Didn't remember the original line going to Mesa?

As stated, my point was that it had a primarily urban focus in contrast to Denver's suburb to city strategy. Didn't I suggest that it might be the busiest?

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by s.p.hansen

Remember, the gas tax isn't like other taxes, we aren't talking about higher percentages but rather raising it a set amount of cents per gallon. When you have a tax like that it needs to be adjusted for inflation. The Federal and State government hasn't raised it since the early 90's. It's time.

Perhaps I missed it (on this thread) but what specifically is being considered in raising the gas tax in Utah?

Yep, Federal taxes not increased sine 1993, not even to keep up with inflation.

It didn't matter so much in the last decade as billions upon billions in earmarks were given out like Halloween candy for road and bridge (or transit) projects. They just put it in with the rest of the General Fund deficit spending.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by s.p.hansen

And if UTA is smart they will keep throwing us exta steaks to eat ahead of the other dogs during feeding time.

It will all be very interesting to see what happens because RTD and UTA are such great examples of good regional transit builders.

I only know from doing some general background but I couldn't help but be impressed with what you all have accomplished.

Not to go all politics but it seems a case can be made, at least on the business side, that Utah/SLC is quite progressive. Texas to a degree as well.

Speaking of "per capita" can't SLC claim to be the most transit friendly city per capita?

The big HUGE advantage is the cost basis that you're able to execute at. I'm sure there are a number of reasons for this. Denver though , if compared to many other metro areas looks very reasonable in its own right. Seems like Miami has had some interesting experience with light rail?

[Cirrus]

Originally Posted by PHX31

What exactly were the population numbers used to determine each city's per capita?

They used "urbanized areas," which are regions defined by the US Census that ignore political boundaries. Basically, they're places where the density stays above 1,000 people per square mile without interruption. It's by far the most apples-to-apples way to compare cities in different regions.

[Boiseguy]

this is why for a city the size of boise our traffic is ridiculous…

you need a transit system before you can have people ride it…
boise lacks the ability for local option tax by the state constitution…
so.. here we sit.. bottom of the list…
can someone please forward this information to the Drunk Cowboy Governor of ours?

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by Boiseguy

this is why for a city the size of boise our traffic is ridiculous…

you need a transit system before you can have people ride it…
boise lacks the ability for local option tax by the state constitution…
so.. here we sit.. bottom of the list…
can someone please forward this information to the Drunk Cowboy Governor of ours?

But you can't make this stuff up.