Density and Captivity in Public Transit Success: Observations from the 1995 Nationwide Personal Transportation Study

Abstract

The new millennium provides a good time to reflect on transportation-industry trends in some fundamental external factors that influence transportation behavior and planning response. In the public-transit industry, urban density and transit captivity have long been fundamental conditions driving transit planning and service and facility investment decisions. In light of demographic and economic changes, it is useful to revisit the issue of the importance of these factors to the transit market. Findings from a comprehensive analysis of the 1995 Nation-wide Personal Transportation Study (NPTS), which explored current transit-travel behavior, are reported. Two key findings reflect on two historical axioms in transit: ( a) the extent to which density influences transit use and ( b) the importance of the transit-dependent market. The research findings reiterate the significant influence that development density has on public transit mode share and bring to light some revealing data on the influence of urban-area size on transit use. The importance of transit dependency on transit use is documented, and trends in transit dependency over the past few decades are revealed. Finally, the implications of these trends for the public-transit industry are discussed.

Profiling public transport users through perceptions about public transport providers and satisfaction with the public transport service

“…Despite being "captive" users, it is important to provide quality service that addresses their needs as they are regular users (36.2%); in addition, it is essential to improve passengers' confidence in the service as a perception of a reliable public transport system is a sure way to increase use. Public transport dependents tend to be from a low social level (Polzin et al 2000), a profile consistent with our "captive dissatisfied" segment.…”

Land use and transit ridership connections: Implications for state-level planning agencies

“…median household income, income distribution) (Ingram, 1998;Cohn and Canada, 1999;Frisken, 1991;Thompson and Brown, 2006;Fujii and Hartshorni, 1995;Yoh et al, 2003;Hirsch et al, 2000;Kyte et al, 1988;Cervero et al, 1993), (iii) population characteristics (e.g. percent of captive and choice riders, or household with zero cars) (Cohn and Canada, 1999;Polzin et al, 2000;Ewing, 2008;Davies, 1976), and (iv) auto/highway system characteristics (specifically non-transit/non-single occupancy vehicle trips, including commuting via carpools) (Cervero, 2007;Lisco, 1968;Holtzclaw et al, 1994;Taylor and Fink, 2002;Gómez-Ibánez and Fauth, 1980). They also confirm that availability of public transit is strongly correlated with the urbanization of the area.…”

Spatial Transit Accessibility Modeling of Indian Metropolitan City in Gis Environment

“…Walking accessibility to public transport is applied to indicate the quality or performance of public transport service (Polzin et al, 2000;Rudnicki, 1999). Based on an assumed average walking speed of about 1.3 m/s, 5 minutes of walking is considered reasonable in urban areas, which are about 400meters in terms of walking distance (Levinson, 1992;Foda and Osman, 2010).…”