Public transportation, specifically rail transportation, has been a hot topic lately. The Green New Deal resolution puts rail as a top priority when it comes to transforming our transportation systems (Ocasio-Cortez, 2019, p. 8-9). Numerous cities have voted on whether to increase taxes to support the expansion of rail transit (McDonald, 2018, para. 7). And New York, a city with more rail transit than any other in the United States, is considering adding its first streetcar in decades (Newman, 2018).

Each of these efforts are due to a desire to increase public transit ridership, reduce congestion, and lower greenhouse gas emissions to help combat climate change. While there is plenty of evidence to back-up the efficiency of rail transit over other forms of land transportation (Hoffrichter, 2019, para. 8), there has been less research performed on whether rail transit boosts public transportation ridership. This push for rail transit is admirable, but it is crucial that we understand if these investments lead to higher rates of transit usage. To fill this information gap, I performed a statistical analysis reflecting prior research in order to gauge rail transit’s effect on transit ridership in cities.

Variety in Demographics and Physical Environments

Previous research has focused on what demographic groups ride public transportation. Overall the research has shown that transit riders are more likely to be a lower income person of color. While less than 40 percent of the U.S. population identifies as a minority race, 60 percent of public transit riders do (American Public Transportation Association, 2017, p. 4). Median incomes for riders are $4,314 lower than median incomes for those who commute alone by car (Maciag, 2014, para. 2-5). While cities can promote diversity and inclusion, every city hopes to boost incomes instead of lowering them.

Research has also shown that individuals with a Bachelor’s Degree or higher tend to take rail transit over other forms of public transit; 70 percent of rail transit riders versus 51 percent on all forms of transit (American Public Transportation Association, 2017, p. 38-40). This dichotomy of riders, both highly educated and lower median incomes, suggests that transit is serving a diverse set of constituents across a diverse landscape.

There has also been discussion about what types of transportation work best in different physical settings. Often density is considered a key aspect in promoting public transportation, and low density has been cited by cities to justify investing in highways instead of public transit networks (Public Transport Users Association, 2019, para. 19). Others argue that there is a difference between density and walkability, stating that most residents live within easy walking distance to public transit (James, 2018, para. 6). While living nearby, their physical environment may be built in such a way that discourage them from using transit, perhaps a poor layout of the street network, or inclusion of cul-de-sacs (Stromberg, 2015, para. 8-11).

Finding Rail’s Place In The Equation

Each of these characteristics influence the viability of public transportation. In order to determine how rail transit factors into public transportation, data from the 2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates was collected for 100 cities. The cities range in size from Salt Lake City (pop. 194, 188) to San Francisco (pop. 864,263), avoiding smaller cities and large cities, such as New York and Chicago, who might skew results too far one way or the other. The census data was combined with Walk Scores (which serves as a proxy for the built environment) and the political party of the governor for each state (reflecting funding priorities based on ideology).

When tested on its own, cities with rail transit systems resulted in public transit ridership being over 7 percentage points higher than in cities without rail transit. This was a significant boost to the idea that rail transit is a worthwhile investment, but does not produce a full picture. To showcase the differences in the models, Rochester, NY is used as an example in the graph below, as it currently does not have access to rail transit.

Once we take into consideration demographic differences between cities, the presence of rail transit sees a slightly lower effect, with public transit ridership being over 4 percentage points higher in cities with rail over cities without. Still a significant boost in ridership that would seem to justify the expense of building out a rail system, but the results become more clouded when the physical environment of a city comes into play.

Accounting for walkability and density, rail transit becomes insignificant in terms of increasing public transit ridership. When cities are more walkable people are able to get most of what they need within walking distance, removing the need for a car. For trips outside of their neighborhood, they then must rely on public transportation, regardless of which form it is.

There are some limitations to the analysis performed, with the major issue being funding. While political parties view public transit differently and will prioritize it according to those views, it does not fully account for the differences in funding for each of these systems.

There is also the simple fact that some transit networks are better planned than others. While a transit system may have ample funding, if the network is not designed properly it will not be able to increase ridership. Rochester is an example of a city that is underperforming due to the design and implementation of its system.

Screen Shot 2019-05-26 at 1.54.11 PM.png

Recommendations

With the environmental crisis of climate change looming, we must continue to advocate for policies that promote public transportation and a more efficient city. While the data is not conclusive when it comes to the benefits of rail transit, it does point to some important steps cities can take.

Promote Dense, Walkable Neighborhoods

Through zoning and other comprehensive planning techniques, cities can emphasize dense, walkable development. This does not mean every city needs to be as dense as New York City or Chicago. This means producing neighborhoods where most errands can be done on foot. Reducing the need to venture outside of one’s own neighborhood also reduces the need for a car. Public transit will be used to connect these walkable neighborhoods, allowing residents and visitors to feel comfortable getting around without a car.

Plan Within Your Budget

Not every city can afford to build rail transit. Not every city can afford to build out a bus rapid transit (BRT) network. Cities must consider plans that provide the greatest service within their own budget. Houston opted to revamp their bus network into a grid like structure, understanding that not all commutes end in the downtown area anymore. This restructuring resulted in a noticeable increase in transit ridership without having to invest in a physical infrastructure (Bliss, 2018, para. 4 and 10).

Ensure Affordable Housing Around Transit

Lower-income residents and minority populations rely on public transportation to a greater degree than their higher-income and white neighbors. Ensuring that any development along transit lines includes a large portion of affordable housing will provide increased accessibility for those who need it the most. Protecting residents against gentrification is paramount to growing transit ridership and improving accessibility for those who need it most.