REINVENTING TRANSIT
FROM A SOCIAL SERVICE TO A CRITICAL PUBLIC UTILITY
THE PRE 1950 PAST
. Extensive networks for
streetcars , trams and buses
. Operated by the private sector through a system of franchises with oversight by PSC
. Profitable up until WWII
THE DISMANTLEING PERIOD 1950 – 1970
. Transit outside very large dependent eastern cities completely dismantled.
. A few hang on with public support from cities and
Chambers of Commerce . Assets including garages,
vehicles, sold off and
converted to other purposes.
THE RESSURRECTION PERIOD AS A SOCIAL SERVICE
. New Regional Authorities developed city by city with public tax funding as the mainstay.
. Service spread broadly to
provide some access (though very inadequate) for
disenfranchised.
. Service and fares set by public hearing
THE REINVENTION PERIOD 1990 TO PRESENT
. Beginnings of recognition that PT has a vital role to play in our communities not an
incidental one.
. New High Performance Transit Networks begin to be
conceived, funded and built . Recognition of critical role of
Market Research for service development
How Has Transit Changed?
Finances
Demographics
• Politics
• Processes,
equipment,
technology
Creation of High Performance Networks include :
Unique branding
Off-board ticketing
Level boarding
Real Time passenger information
Substantial stations
Western U.S. Investment in Transit (in billions) City/Agency Past 10 Years Current Next 10 Years TOTAL
Salt Lake City $1.10 $3.00 $5.50 $9.6
Denver $1.50 $4.70 $7.50 $13.70
Portland $3.10 $1.55 $2.80 $7.45
Phoenix $1.40 $0.00 $7.50 $8.90
Houston $0.30 $2.40 $1.50 $4.20
Atlanta $0.30 $0.05 $15.00 $15.35
Las Vegas $0.85 $0.90 $0.25 $2.00
Minneapolis $1.00 $2.00 $6.50 $9.50
San Francisco $4.50 $4.20 $5.10 $13.80
Dallas $2.00 $3.60 $2.50 $8.10
Los Angeles $4.30 $4.40 $6.70 $15.40
San Diego $2.00 $0.00 $4.00 $6.00
Seattle $5.00 $5.00 $15.00 $25.00
Albuquerque $0.42 $0.00 $0.03 $0.45
Austin $0.40 $0.00 $0.60 $1.00
Charlotte $0.46 $1.90 $3.00 $5.36
TOTALS $28.63 $33.70 $83.48 $145.81
Different modes may be selected for each service type.
9
Flexible
Schedule Fixed
Schedule Need for Fixed
Schedule Flexible
Schedule Fixed
Schedule
No Transit Transit Willingness
to Use Transit
No Transit Transit No Transit Transit No Transit Transit
Market Segments
Attitudinal Focus
Anxious Amblers
None of These Factors Sensitivity to
Time Low Sensitivity of Time High Sensitivity of Time
All Travelers
Transit Flexible
Riders
Fixed Schedule Productive
9 to 5-ers
Fixed Schedule Transitand Routine
Riders
Time Cautious
Flyers
Time and Fixed
Schedule Cautious 9 to 5-ers
Time, Fixed Schedule and
Transit Routine
Flyers
Time and Transit
Flexibl e Flyers
10
MARKET SEGMENTATION
CHANGE CULTURAL ATTITUDES
1. Shift the culture from a social service to that of a critical public utility
2. Perceive of the public investment as paying for reduced traffic and assume a leadership role in the development of new modes including car
sharing, bike and pedestrian ways and van pools 3. Identify social service needs and turn
responsibility over to social service organizations
CHANGING CULTURE
4. Do not use Public Hearing input for service design but for communication of changes
5. Pay executives and top level staff according to market. Currently US transit executives are paid
½ to 1/3 comparable counterparts in other regional utility industries.
Modernize and technologize
. Create a developing technology center.
. Incorporate new fare payment technology for distance based fare collection
. Take full advantage of new social media such as Facebook and Twitter to keep public informed
Market based service criteria
. Conduct market research to identify markets to serve.
. Establish fares at levels the markets will bear
. Establish standards for efficiency to explain why not all markets can be served including ISO 9000 and 14000 certification.
. Use market research to continuously evaluate public perception of value such as Net Promoter Score
Financial Sustainability
. Identify the ROI for the community stockholders.
. Be aggressive about gaining non-tax revenue
generation from non-traditional sources i.e. TODs and commercial franchises within stations
. Seek relationships with energy developers
. Open the market to allow the best equipment to be purchased for the required service
CONVERSION TO PUBLIC UTILITY MODEL
Study and evaluate the many models used world wide to support the privatization of the Public Transit Sector including:
1. Authorizing/ organizing Authority systems common in Europe.
2. Public/Private Partnerships for the development and operation of major infrastructure investments
3. Allow Private Sector partners to do what they do best, choose markets, take risks which
controlling them etc.
Thank you for listening.
Transit Ridership in Utah
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
Annual Riders (Millions)
Total Annual Transit Riders
World
War 2 Energy Crisis
Start of TRAX 33 Million
93 Million
39 Million
Rise of the Automobile
Creation of UTA
Transit Ridership in Utah
The Potential of Transit in Utah
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
Annual Boardings (millions)
Transit Oriented Growth Financially Sustainable Regional Transportation Plan
Why
John M. Inglish, General Manager/CEO Utah Transit Authority
Salt Lake City, Utah
The Transit 2030 Plan
Plan highlights include:
Commuter Rail: 120+ miles Light Rail: 60 miles Bus Rapid Transit: 80+ miles Increases in bus service
Integrated multi-modal system
Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS)
The Results
Passed in both
counties at a 2-1
margin
Business Support
• In 2005, top local business and community leaders participated in UTA television and print
campaign.
Evidence About
Programs & Projects
Decision
61.1
46.1
22.7
69.9
66.6 66.6
51.8
17.6
71.1
47.7
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
FrontRunner Trax Regular Bus Fast/Express 35M
UTA Net Promoter Score by Service Type
2008 2011
Lower sensitivity to time Fixed schedule
Travel during rush hours Willingness to use transit
Routine Riders
Most have one car per household
Employed full-time or part-time
Lower income Half are married
Two-thirds are male Your typical college
student is
representative of this group
26
Evidence About Processes
Decision
