TRANSIT MARKETS IN OHIO

Statewide Market Analysis DRAFT Ohio Department of Transportation

TRANSIT MARKETS IN OHIO

The Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) is conducting a Statewide Transit Needs Study. The goal of this study is to determine if the public transportation services available today meet the needs of Ohio residents. If there are unmet needs, the study will develop a strategy that will improve transit services in a way that is efficient and appropriate. The Statewide Transit Need Study is a year-long effort that is being managed by ODOT and guided by a Steering Committee comprised of transit agencies, human service representatives, business representatives, and members of the state legislature.

As part of the Transit Needs Study, the study team prepared a market analysis. The team designed the market analysis to consider existing conditions in each of Ohio's 88 counties and use qualitative data, such as site visits with each transit agency (see Appendix A), and quantitative data, such as development patterns and demographics, to broadly assess the need for transit services.1 It is always difficult to quantify the need for public transportation services absolutely. There are always exceptions to every rule and sometimes transit services succeed where you might not expect to them to and fail when they should work. However, national experience suggests that two factors have more influence over the need for transit service than any other:

? Density ? places where there are high concentrations of workers and/or residents ? is the most important factor in determining transit ridership. Densely developed areas ? like downtowns in large cities, university campuses, and hospitals ? have many people traveling to them, so there are more people who could use transit. In addition, densely developed areas are also more likely to have safe walking environments with sidewalks and crosswalks, so people can safely get to and from transit routes.

? Demographics suggest that people in a community may rely on public transportation to meet their travel needs. Households with only one vehicle or people with low incomes, for example, indicate that people may be looking for public transportation to supplement their transportation options. Likewise, teenagers who may not have access to a car, or older adults who may be driving less also suggest a reliance on public transportation.

1 County-by-county analyses published under a separate cover.

Density ? places where there are high concentrations of workers and/or residents ? is the most important factor determining

transit ridership.

Community demographics, such as income, access to a vehicle, disability status, and age, are also important factors in determining

transit ridership.

Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 1

National experience tells us that density and demographics also help determine the type of transit service that will work best in a particular region. There are a wide variety of transit services, ranging from high capacity modes such as rail and bus rapid transit to lower capacity modes such as dial-a-ride and community shuttles.2 Each of these different services has different strengths and weaknesses and is designed to serve different types of communities and riders. Rail systems, for example, are very expensive to build but can carry high volumes of passengers efficiently when operating through densely populated corridors and safe, well developed walking environments. Dial-a-ride service, on the other hand, carries fewer riders but work well in areas with lower populations and offer a higher level of service for people unable to walk long distances or who need more assistance traveling.

Figure 1 Transit Services Hierarchy Pyramid

Ultimately, transportation connects people to jobs, activities, and basic services like medical appointments and shopping. Every community has people who cannot reach jobs and basic services on their own. For the most part, these individuals use transportation services provided by other federal and state human and medical service programs, like Medicaid (see bottom two levels of Figure 1). These services are typically mandated by the federal government, and are available statewide, but they are limited trips to and from specific appointments and activities. Public transportation, on the other hand, includes transportation services available to members of the general public traveling for any purpose (see the top three levels of Figure 1). In Ohio, local communities typically counties, decide if they want to provide general public transportation and how to provide that service.

The objective of this market analysis, therefore, is to broadly assess the need for public transportation throughout Ohio, including from both a statewide and county perspective. Needs, as discussed, are estimated using a combination of population and employment density and demographic characteristics. The analysis of each of Ohio's 88 counties is available in separate documents. The following analysis considers historic trends and current patterns that affect the need for transit in Ohio from a statewide perspective.

2 Bus rapid transit is similar to rail but uses buses. An example in Ohio is the Health Line operated by the Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority.

Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 2

Statewide Market Analysis DRAFT Ohio Department of Transportation

Statewide Market Analysis DRAFT Ohio Department of Transportation

HISTORIC TRENDS ? OHIO'S DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS AND DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS

Population and economic activity in Ohio boomed in the early 19th century, as part of the industrial revolution when access to transport such as waterways and railways, natural resources (coal and iron ore), and a stable workforce was critical. Ohio grew rapidly until the mid-1960s, when it reached a population of 10 million. The U.S. economy has changed dramatically since the mid-1960s, and is less dependent on transportation and natural resources and more on services. Although Ohio is adjusting to these changes, for a complex set of reasons, Ohio's transition has been slower as compared to other parts of the country. Partially in response to changes in the national economy, Ohio's population grew slowly between 1970 and the current day, to its current level of about 11.5 people, making it the seventh most populous state in the U.S.

Unlike most U.S. states, which typically have just one or two major cities, Ohio has three fairly large urban areas plus an additional five well established small- to medium-sized urban areas. To a large extent this pattern of urbanization reflects the economic development in Ohio during the 20th century. By 2010, nearly 78 percent of Ohio's population lived in urban areas, and about 60 percent of the population lives in one of the state's eight largest cities ? Akron, Canton, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton, Toledo, and Youngstown.3 This urban population lives almost entirely along the diagonal corridor cutting across northeast and southwest Ohio, anchored by Cleveland, Columbus, and Cincinnati. The remaining 40 percent of the state's population lives in small towns or rural areas. Undoubtedly, a percentage of the population in any urban area also lives in areas of lower suburban density. This pattern of urbanization with means that Ohio faces a continuous challenge associated with providing public transportation appropriately.

3 2010 U.S. Census

Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 3

Statewide Market Analysis DRAFT Ohio Department of Transportation

Key Trends in Ohio's Development Patterns:

? Declines in manufacturing and the widespread construction of limitedaccess highways in Ohio (among other causes) hurt cities, especially downtown areas, which lost residents, jobs, and retail.

Key Trends in Ohio's Demographic & Socio-Economic Characteristics:

? In the past decade, Ohio grew more slowly than the rest of the nation. Between 2000 and 2012, Ohio grew by 1.7 percent, while the nation grew by nearly 11 percent.

? Recent data suggests this trend may be reversing (see the Demographic ? The United States overall is becoming both younger and older. Ohio,

Trend Analysis), but population growth and development in Ohio has

however, is adding older people without the same growth in the younger

largely occurred outside of Ohio's downtowns over the past decades.

population (see Figure 3).

Many cities, including the largest, lost population.

? The loss of youth population in Ohio slowed somewhat in 2007-2012

? To date, only the largest cities have experienced some reversal of this

while the growth rate of the older adult population increased.

trend.

? Ohio also has more low-income individuals than it did a decade ago. In

? Overall, Ohio is becoming less dense. In Ohio's urban areas, population

2000, roughly 18 percent of the population was characterized as low

density decreased from 3.4 persons per acre in 2000 to 3.1 in 2012.

income; by 2012, this percentage was just under 25 percent.

? Ohio cities are also less dense than urban areas nationally (see Figure 2).

? The number of low-income individuals has been growing since before the 2009 recession, though the growth rate increased slightly in the past five years.

Figure 2 Persons per Acre in U.S. and Ohio Urban Areas, 2000-2010

Figure 3 Percent Change in Population Characteristics in Ohio, 2000-2012

Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 4

Employment

Ohio has about 5.3 million jobs and, despite growth in many sectors, is not yet back to pre-recession employment levels.4 Recent employment growth has been unsteady but slowly improving since the large decline in 2009. As part of determining transit service needs, this study examines how ? at a macro level ? people traveled to work. Employment statistics show:

? In 2011, just about half (about 53 percent) of Ohio's workforce lived and worked in the same Ohio county.

? The other half (about 47 percent) worked outside of the county in which they resided.

? Counties that import the most workers from surrounding counties include Cuyahoga (Cleveland), Franklin (Columbus), and Hamilton (Cincinnati), as expected (see Figure 4).

? Counties that export the most workers to surrounding counties include Lorain (west of Cleveland), Clermont (east of Cincinnati), Medina (south of Cleveland), Butler (north of Cincinnati), and Fairfield (east of Columbus).

? A small number of employed Ohio residents (< 1 percent) worked outside of the state.

Figure 4 Job Flow in Ohio Counties, 2011 LEHD

Statewide Market Analysis DRAFT Ohio Department of Transportation

4 Based on Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2014

Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 5

 ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download