News   Jan 26, 2026
 751     0 
News   Jan 26, 2026
 522     0 
News   Jan 26, 2026
 442     1 

What Really Matters for Increasing Transit Ridership

M II A II R II K

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
3,945
Reaction score
1,068
What Really Matters for Increasing Transit Ridership


May 21, 2012

By Eric Jaffe

logo.gif


Read More: http://www.theatlanticcities.com/co...ly-matters-increasing-transit-ridership/2059/


At first glance Broward County, Florida, doesn't look like the friendliest place for public transportation. The metro area just north of Miami has a couple downtown areas — Fort Lauderdale and Hollywood — but lacks a strong central business district. It also lacks much transit-oriented development. On the contrary, Broward has a very typical postwar, auto-oriented design marked by wide highways and sprawl. Looks can, of course, be deceiving. As it happens, Broward County has one of the strongest transit systems among other mid-sized metro areas in the United States.

- Compared to 26 other bus-only metros in its class, Broward trails only Orlando and Las Vegas in terms of cost-effectiveness, outperforming higher-profile places like Austin, Charlotte, Indianapolis, and Phoenix. Its buses are full, as measured by per capita ridership, and they've stayed that way in recent years, even as transit in general has struggled.

- The analysis of transit work trip demand in Broward County indicates that the reason BCT [Broward County Transit] performs so well compared with most of its peers is that its multidestination route structure directly connects the county’s residential areas with the dispersed jobs to which they travel. … In Broward County, workers use transit to get to jobs in a multitude of locations that do not possess the built environment characteristics long thought to be important by most scholars in determining transit ridership.

- In the 1970s the county's bus routes focused on getting people to Fort Lauderdale, Hollywood, and later down to Miami, as per the conventional transit wisdom of the day. When ridership failed to increase, the transit authority restructured the system into a grid that traversed high-density (if not the highest) employment areas. The shift made sense considering that most Broward residents are so-called transit-dependents: among riders, 60 percent are from households that make under $20,000 a year, and about half don't own a car.

- In a word, Broward County de-centralized its transit system. Instead of clinging to the belief that all jobs were downtown, it accepted that people need to access jobs in all kinds of places throughout a metro area. We've seen this before: Tallahassee recently reached this conclusion, as Emily Badger points out; Atlanta's transit system also demonstrates the effectiveness of a multi-destination approach, as Thompson and colleagues have found. But since this realization remains the exception and not the norm, it bears repeating. Thompson and colleagues use their findings to make an intriguing policy point. At a time when cities are struggling to attract transit riders, many policy options focus on the need to increase smart growth.

- Simply put, the results of this study suggest that most US transit managers of bus-only transit systems and urban planners interested in transit are focusing on the wrong policy variables for improving transit ridership. More walkable, more mixed use environments are important amenities to encourage more transit use, but the most important consideration is easy access to employment. … Before we try to change the built environment, we need to make sure transit takes riders where they need to go.

.....




largest.jpg
 
The concept of "more walkable, more mixed use environments" is not mutually exclusive to "easy access to employment". Same with "travel time" vs "transfer time".

This writer is confused. What urban planners should do to improve transit ridership and what transit planners should do to improve ridership are two separate things. It's not a choice between one or the other.

So, transit agencies should focus on serving the actual travel demand? No shit. And yes, grid system can some serve demands better. We in Toronto know that - TTC is probably the closest to a pure grid system in North America. Mississauga/Brampton Transit have strong grid elements too.
 
^ Up until last year, Oakville Transit's system had all lines eventually coming to the Oakville GO Station and the center hub and going out from there in every direction. It meant that if you lived in North-west Oakville and worked in North-east Oakville, you had to go all the way down to the GO Station first to transfer to the right line. Now they implemented a more grid system, with buses that go straight along Lakeshore, Upper Middle and Dundas east-west, which makes more sense as the commercial and industrial areas are along the QEW/403 and at the edges of the city. Since they implemented that system it has really improved ridership.
 
That's one problem with the GO trains. They all go to Union Station in downtown Toronto. If you work in Scarborough, but live in Etobicoke, taking the GO train means going through Union or taking the car.

In fact, that's what I did when I had a job in Scarborough. I would board the Georgetown GO train from Weston station to get to Union, transfer to the eastbound Lakestore train to the Eglinton GO station in Scarborough and walk the short distance to work.
 
Last edited:
Toronto is doing a great job of increasing Transit ridership at the moment. The recipe is simple: don't build new transit for decades, double the number of cars on the road thereby increasing traffic congestion every year, and continue to increase the population. Voila!

This is also the solution to urban densification and revitalization of the urban core of a city.
 
Toronto is doing a great job of increasing Transit ridership at the moment. The recipe is simple: don't build new transit for decades, double the number of cars on the road thereby increasing traffic congestion every year, and continue to increase the population. Voila!

This is also the solution to urban densification and revitalization of the urban core of a city.

Perhaps, Toronto's way is working considering the improvement in transit ridership per capita for all GTA systems every year in the past 10 years or so, and the huge amount of residential development that the downtown core has experienced during that time and that is still ongoing, making the City of Toronto the current leader in North America in terms of the amount of high-rises under construction.
 
the lack of efficent transit from the suburbs is doing exactly that, it impossible to live there. (as well as the greenbelt, which has been set up properly unlike ottawas)
 
the lack of efficent transit from the suburbs is doing exactly that, it impossible to live there. (as well as the greenbelt, which has been set up properly unlike ottawas)

Ummm....why is Ottawa's greenbelt poorly set up? It does exactly what it was meant to do: separate the city proper from its suburban neighours.
 
Ummm....why is Ottawa's greenbelt poorly set up? It does exactly what it was meant to do: separate the city proper from its suburban neighours.

A proper and successful greenbelt around a city does not have any of that city's suburbs beyond it. It is (was) a sprawl reduction tactic.
 
Perhaps, Toronto's way is working considering the improvement in transit ridership per capita for all GTA systems every year in the past 10 years or so, and the huge amount of residential development that the downtown core has experienced during that time and that is still ongoing, making the City of Toronto the current leader in North America in terms of the amount of high-rises under construction.

Although Tricky's comment about ignoring transit while having explosive population growth is funny and has some kernels of truth, this wasn't the cause of Toronto's downtown condo boom. It was a crapshoot, really: all those years of ignoring transit expansion and forcing people to drive could have led Toronto down the other path: to abandoning its transit-focused downtown in favour of suburban growth in jobs and housing. When it comes to jobs this is partially true (although there are, of course, other factors), although this may be starting to reverse itself too.
 
That's one problem with the GO trains. They all go to Union Station in downtown Toronto. If you work in Scarborough, but live in Etobicoke, taking the GO train means going through Union or taking the car.

In fact, that's what I did when I had a job in Scarborough. I would board the Georgetown GO train from Weston station to get to Union, transfer to the eastbound Lakestore train to the Eglinton GO station in Scarborough and walk the short distance to work.
You do know that there are GO buses which run along the 401 and stop in Etobicoke, right?
 
A proper and successful greenbelt around a city does not have any of that city's suburbs beyond it. It is (was) a sprawl reduction tactic.

That's never been the point of Ottawa's greenbelt. I've attended several public consultations in Ottawa. And it's always been clear that the greenbelt in Ottawa is basically aesthetic. It supposed to promote a "capital in the garden" feel to the city for the city proper. There's no support in Ottawa for what you get in the GTA as you drive in: gradual increasing urbanization in a single conurbation.
 
That's never been the point of Ottawa's greenbelt. I've attended several public consultations in Ottawa. And it's always been clear that the greenbelt in Ottawa is basically aesthetic. It supposed to promote a "capital in the garden" feel to the city for the city proper. There's no support in Ottawa for what you get in the GTA as you drive in: gradual increasing urbanization in a single conurbation.
That's the purpose of the Greenbelt now.
All the planning documents of the time indicate that the greenbelt was designed to constrain the urban area, intending to avoid Toronto style sprawl. They didn't take into account that the rise of the automobile (and construction of the 417) enabled easy commuting through the greenbelt. I doubt many people would move out to Kanata if they were still commuting downtown on the old Richmond Rd streetcar.

As far as I can tell, the NCC had a crisis of conscience in the 90s, when they realized the plan had completely and totally failed. It opened the door for developers to start lobbying to carve off little sections here and there to build on. I believe the NCC has since strengthened their resolve, under the new principle of "capital in the garden".

On the topic of Ottawa, they definitely need to begin to untangle the busses there. The current system is great for going to the Transitway, and by extension downtown, but suburb-to-suburb is still very difficult. Kanata to Barrhaven can still require 3 transfers.
 
Last edited:
The ONLY responsibility of transit is to get people from A to B as quickly, comfortably, safely, and reliably as possible.
It is NOT the responsibility of transit to create "complete streets", liveable communities, or vibrant neighbourhoods. Those things are the responsibility of the city's urban planning dept.

Ideally they should work together but when push comes to shove the only thing transit should be worried about is moving people to where they need to go. Transit can certainly help create vibrant communities and that is a very welcome spinoff but the TTC's
1st, 2nd, and 3rd priorities is effective transit. When transit systems over riding concern starts to become creating communities then they have overstepped their mandate. This is very similar to enviornmental reviews.

Over the years enviornmental reviews have gone from being precisely that to now including community participation, urban planning etc. They have absolutely nothing to do with those things. Their ONLY responsiblity is to ensure that any project {whether transit or not} will be constructed in an enviornmentally safe manner. Toronto has blurred those responsibilities. This is why many people who have concerns about projects bring them up with enviornmental review panels which they have nothing to do with. St.Clair was a stellar example of where enviornmental reviews turned into political events yet there should be absolutely nothing political about them.

Transit authorities should focus on nothing except transit and leave the urban planning dept to the City.
 

Back
Top