Final Report November 2018 “The preparation of this report has been financed in part from the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) through the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and/or the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), the State Planning and Research Program (Section 505 of Title 23, U.S. Code) and Miami-Dade County, Florida. The contents of this report do not necessarily reflect the official views or policy of the U.S. Department of Transportation.
The Miami-Dade TPO complies with the provisions of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which states: No person in the United States shall, on grounds of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance. It is also the policy of the Miami-Dade TPO to comply with all of the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act. For materials in accessible format please call (305) 375-4507.”
i Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction ...... 1 2.0 Literature Research ...... 2 2.1 Transit in Miami-Dade County ...... 2 2.1.1 Overview ...... 2 2.1.2 Ridership Trends – MDT System ...... 6 2.2 Factors Influencing Transit Ridership in Miami-Dade County ...... 11 2.2.1 Potential Internal Factors ...... 11 2.2.2 Potential External Factors ...... 17 2.3 National Literature Review ...... 22 2.3.1 Comparison of MDT with Other Transit Systems ...... 22 2.3.2 Transit Agencies with Increase in Ridership ...... 23 2.3.3 Internal and External Factors Affecting Transit Ridership ...... 24 2.3.4 Transportation Network Companies (TNCs)...... 26 3.0 Transit Survey Results ...... 28 3.1 Survey Results – Transit Users ...... 28 3.2 Survey Results - Non-Transit Users ...... 35 3.3 Survey Results - Maps ...... 37 4.0 Conclusions and Recommendations ...... 47 4.1 Conclusions - Transit Ridership Data Analysis and Survey Results ...... 47 4.2 Conclusions – National Literature Research ...... 48 4.3 Recommendations ...... 49
ii List of Figures
Figure 1: Miami-Dade County Metrobus Transit System Map...... 3 Figure 2: Miami-Dade County Metrorail Transit System Map ...... 4 Figure 3: Miami-Dade County Metromover Transit System Map ...... 5 Figure 4: Systemwide Cumulative Weekday Ridership for March (2014-2018) ...... 7 Figure 5: Historical Ridership (Average Weekday) Performance for Top Five Metrobus Routes ...... 9 Figure 6: Historical Ridership (Average Weekday) by Revenue Miles for Top Five Metrobus Routes ...... 9 Figure 7: Metrobus Revenue Miles vs. Ridership (2013 – 2018) ...... 11 Figure 8: Municipal Bus and Circulator Routes in Miami-Dade County ...... 16 Figure 9: Annual Ridership for Miami-Dade County Municipal Circulators ...... 17 Figure 10: Historical Unemployment Rate for Miami-Dade County ...... 18 Figure 11: Average Annual Gas Prices in Miami, FL (U.S. Energy Information Administration) ...... 18 Figure 12: CitiBike Station Map ...... 20 Figure 13: Journey to Work – Bike Commuters...... 21 Figure 14: Journey to Work – Bike Mode Share ...... 21 Figure 15: Change in Unlinked Passenger Trips between 2012 and 2016 (Comparison with Other Transit Agencies) ...... 22 Figure 16: Map of Zip Codes Reported by Respondents in Miami-Dade County ...... 39 Figure 17: Geographic Distribution of Survey Respondents. Transit Users ...... 40 Figure 18: Geographic Distribution of Survey Respondents. Non-Transit Users ...... 41 Figure 19: Zero Car Households – Transit Users ...... 42 Figure 20: Transit Use Increased ...... 43 Figure 21: Transit Use Decreased ...... 44 Figure 22: Responded County Transit Services as Primary Mode of Travel for Transit Users ...... 45 Figure 23: Responded Municipal Transit Services as Primary Mode of Travel for Transit Users ...... 46
List of Tables
Table 1: MDT Transit System Characteristics by Mode (2017) ...... 6 Table 2: Total Weekday Boardings for March by Mode (2014-2018). Mode Share...... 6 Table 3: Total Weekday Boardings for March by Mode (2014-2018). Annual Percent Change...... 7 Table 4: Historical Weekday Ridership of Top 5 Metrobus Routes ...... 8 Table 5: Metrorail Historical Average Weekday Boardings by Station for March ...... 10 Table 6: Metromover Historical Average Weekday Boardings by Station for March ...... 10 Table 7: Historical On-Time Performance of Transit Vehicles Per Mode ...... 12 Table 8: Breakdown of Miami-Dade County Transit 311 Complaints ...... 13 Table 9: Breakdown of Miami-Dade County Transit 311 Complaints by Mode ...... 13 Table 10: Municipal Circulators in Miami-Dade County ...... 15 Table 11: The Effects of Operational and External Factors on Transit Ridership ...... 25 Table 12: Transit Use Frequency of Survey Responders ...... 28 Table 13: Transit Use Trends in the Last 12 Months ...... 29 Table 14: Primary Reason for Transit Use Decline ...... 29 Table 15: Transit Use Decline vs. Age of Respondents ...... 30 Table 16: Transit Use Decline Attributed to Uber, Lyft, or Taxi Use by Age Groups ...... 30 Table 17: Household Income of Transit Users ...... 31
iii Table 18: Access to an Automobile ...... 31 Table 19: Frequency of Transit Use and Access to an Automobile ...... 32 Table 20: Primary Travel Mode of Transit Users ...... 32 Table 21: Transit Users’ Comments ...... 33 Table 22: Transit Users’ Comments by Mode ...... 33 Table 23: Reasons for Transit Use Increase ...... 34 Table 24: Measures to Encourage Transit Use ...... 34 Table 25: Primary Reason for Not Using Transit ...... 35 Table 26: First-Mile, Last-Mile Options to Attract Non-Transit Users ...... 35 Table 27: Non-Transit Users’ Comments ...... 36 Table 28: Non-Transit Users’ Comments by Mode ...... 36 Table 29: Zip Codes of Survey Respondents ...... 37
List of Appendices
Appendix A: Top Five MDT Routes by Mode Appendix B: Transit Service Adjustments in 2018 Appendix C: Transit Survey Questionnaires and Outreach Strategies Appendix D: Transit User Survey Results Appendix E: Non-Transit User Survey Results
iv 1.0 Introduction
Miami-Dade County has the 15th largest public transit system in the country. The Department of Transportation and Public Works (DTPW) is Miami-Dade County’s primary transit system operator with a multimodal transit system comprising of Metrobus, Metrorail, Metromover, and Special Transportation Services (STS). In 2016, approximately 89.5 million passenger boardings were recorded in the DTPW system (Transit Development Plan FY 2019-2028 Annual Update). In addition to DTPW, approximately 25 out of 34 Miami-Dade County’s municipalities operate local transit circulators that supplement DTPW transit operations. Other public and private transit operators in Miami-Dade County include the South Florida Regional Transportation Authority (SFRTA), All Aboard Florida, Greyhound, Amtrak, Broward County Transit (BCT), and private contractors.
As seen in national trends, Miami-Dade County’s transit system has experienced a trend of declining ridership in recent years which in some cases have resulted in the DTPW scaling transit services accordingly. The Miami-Dade Transportation Planning Organization (TPO) initiated this study to identify and examine the contributing factors for the decreasing trend in transit ridership in Miami-Dade County and to recommend potential actions. The main tasks of this study area presented under the following sections:
· Literature Research: This section summarizes a review of recent ridership trends in Miami-Dade County’s transit system as well as national research to identify the factors contributing to decreasing ridership experienced by other transit agencies and actions taken to address the decline. · Survey and Data Analysis: This section summarizes results of a survey conducted to obtain input from the perspective of the transit user and the public in Miami-Dade County. It should be noted that this was not a scientific survey. The survey provided informal feedback on service from individuals that may or may not use transit today, and is not necessarily representative of the general cross section of the population. · Conclusions and Recommendations: This section summarizes study results and makes recommendations to address the findings.
1 2.0 Literature Research
A literature research was conducted to better understand the current state of transit ridership in Miami- Dade County and the contributing factors to changes in transit ridership. In addition, national research was conducted to understand ridership trends experienced by other transit agencies, causal factors, and strategies developed to mitigate transit ridership decline. 2.1 Transit in Miami-Dade County 2.1.1 Overview The following sections include: (i) an overview of Miami-Dade Transit’s (MDT) historical ridership data, (ii) an overview of ridership for local municipal trolleys in Miami-Dade County, (iii) a review of changes in transit ridership at other agencies around the country, (iv) a summary of countermeasures, and (v) a summary of recommendations for mitigating decreasing transit ridership in Miami-Dade County.
MDT is the 15th largest public transit system in the United States and the largest transit agency in Florida. MDT is an integrated transportation system and includes four primary modes:
· Metrobus – 95 bus routes, including limited stop and express routes, provide service throughout Miami-Dade County using more than 800 buses. A system map is included in Figure 1. · Metrorail – an electrically-powered, elevated heavy rail system consisting of two routes (Green Line and Orange Line) totaling 25 miles serving Miami International Airport and the greater Miami area. Metrorail also provides connections to Broward and Palm Beach counties via SFRTA’s Tri-Rail service and Brightline, a high-speed passenger rail service operated by All Aboard Florida. A system map is included in Figure 2. · Metromover – a 4.4-mile elevated people mover serving Downtown Miami, Omni, and Brickell areas. As shown in Figure 3, the Metromover system consists of three loops (Brickell, Inner and Omni). · Special Transportation Service (STS) – is a complementary paratransit service assisting the users that are unable to use regular transit service due to disabilities.
2 HALLANDALE BEACH BLVD E MIRAMAR PKWY 95 E BROWARD COUNTY NW 215 ST MIAMI-DADE COUNTY NW 211 ST 99 95
TO FORT TO LAUDERDALE NE 207 ST GOLDEN D NE 205 ST E NW 206 ST 297 R BEACH NW 2 AVE NE 203 ST NE 2 AVE Y The Bus Terminal RED ROAD 27 27 IR AVE NE 12 NW 202 ST IVES DA at Aventura Mall
FLAMINGO RD FLAMINGO NW 199 ST 99 3,9 WI LLIAM LEHMAN CSWY 199 ST99 M IAMI GARDENS TURNPIKE FLORIDA’S 183 17 210 95 E,S NE 192 ST 99,183
NW 52 AVE NW 52 NW 191 ST NW 47 AVE NW 47 NW 191 ST 95 99 MIAM 75 NE 186 ST NW 186 ST I GA 32 93, 95, 120
RDENS DR AV E AV E NW 183 ST 183 MIAMI GARDENS DR NORTH E 73 42 2,3 16 MIAMI-DADE COUNTY 54 32 95 MIAMI 267 286 CAROL 77 9,10 19 AVENTURA 120 286 NW
NW 75 BEACH CITY NW 175 ST 17 E,H 22 93 E S 75 NE 19 AVE NW 167 ST 75 246 D 286 3 BLV Golden Glades ES NW 167 ST E 246 2 210 SUNNY ISL E 75 826 PALMETTO EXPY 22 NE 163 ST 54 Northeast H TRANSIT SYSTEM Golden E SUNNY 32 Glades Transit Hub
e NW 87 AVE 75 22
MIAMI v 217 Terminal 19 75 ISLES 29 A
LUDLAM RD LUDLAM LAKES 77
7 OPA-LOCKA BEACH
3 NW 156 ST 246
MARCH 2018 MIAMI LAKES DR NW 151 ST NE 151 ST 3 H H W 277 NE 6 AVE 27 267 N 95 16 135 120 OPA-LOCKA 17 77 9 10 EXECUTIVE AIRPORT 42 75 OKEECHOBEE ROAD 277 NW 138 ST NW 135 ST Opa-Locka 217 W DIXIE HWY 135 135 135 G R 297 217 NORTH 73 29 37 A 95 METROBUS ROUTES T MIAMI BAY HARBOR
IG WEST BRO A AVE COLLINS N 27 D CSW ISLANDS W 28 AVE Y G Y 96 ST W 68 ST EX VIEW 29 PY NW 12 AVE NW 119 ST 1 Limited-Stop Service E 65 ST 19 D HIALEAH 16 V G BAL HARBOUR 54 19 MIAMI L GARDENS B Express Service G W 60 ST PINEWOOD SHORES E INDIAN CREEK 32 17 N W 24 AVE 246 17 Y VILLAGE SURFSIDE NW 106 ST 37 135 32 2 A East–West Local-Stop Service W 49 ST NW 103 ST C E 115 33 54 IS 85 ST NE 6 AVE B
33 AV North–South Local-Stop Service 33 17 77 ST E 4 AVE E 8 AVE
Local Shuttle or Circulator Service W 8 AVE W 4 AVE HAWTHORNE AVE HAWTHORNE W 16 AVE W 12 AVE 71 ST N MIAMI N MIAMI NE 2 AVE PALM AVE PALM NW 32 AVE NW 22 AVE NW 17 AVE NW 37 AVE NW 27 AVE NW 7 AVE METROBUS DESTINATIONS 54 37 Metrorail NW 2 AVE EL PORTAL L 79 12, 79 21 202 WY 29 29, L Transfer CS MEDLEY Tri-Rail42, L 32, EDY Palmetto87 HIAL EAH 54, Northside L NW 79 St CSWY JOHN F. KENN 8, 24 NW 79 ST Service Endpoint - Single Route Type NW 74 ST 135 79 202 33 NORTH BAY 115 AVE NW 12 120, C Service Endpoints - Multiple Route Types 42 77 10 3 VILLAGE 120 Hialeah 22 17 12 267 NW 62 ST Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. 46 9 62 Okeechobee73, 62 46 Edmonson NW 107 AVE Terminal NW 58 ST NW 97 AVE NW 87 AVE 29 2 7, 62, 297 LIBER TY 46, 62, MIA MI SPRINGS 27, 254 Transit LITTLE S Village 7 7, 277 115 FLORIDA’S FLORIDA’S TURNPIKE CITY HAITI 36 62 NW 54 ST 54, 297246 Park and Ride Lot 36 54 254 Brownsville 54 254 46 254 95 95 South Dade Transitway Station 37 Hialeah 46 NW 41 ST / DORAL BLVD Earlington Heights21 202 C,M
SW 72 AVE Market 17, 22, PALMETTO EXPY SW 67 AVE 132 41 ST 36 SW 62 AVE NW 36 ST 246 JULIA TUTTLE CSWY Metrorail & Station - Routes Serving Station 132 150 22, 27 95 J J DORAL 132 73 12, Allapattah 277 2 36 21, 36, J, 246 Tri-Rail 36 Miami NW 25 ST 238 Miami Int’l ALLAPA TTAH 95 Airport Airport 2 11 32 12, Omni Bus L, Santa Clara ALTON RD 7, 37 246 115 42, 57 32, 95, 246 Terminal THIS IS A GENERAL REFERENCE MAP. CONSULT INDIVIDUAL ROUTE MAPS FOR DETAILS. Dolphin MIAMI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT 10, 16, 32, A A Mall 87 J, 150 Civic VENETIAN CSWY 238 238 Center A 7, 36, 71, 137, Weekends Only DOLPHIN EXPY M 211 M VENETIAN ISLANDS 338 297 12, 32 Culmer Historic WATSON 338 836 95, M ISLAND M 238, 338 BLUE LAGOON Overtown/ 7, 95, HIBISCUS MIAMI BEACH 246 7 7, 211 MACARTHUR CSWY 7 7 Lyric Theater211, 246 ISLAND COLLINSAVE NW 7 ST 277 STAR S 7 ISLAND C 212 LITT LE WASHINGTON AVE FOUNTAINEBLEAU FLAGAMI W FLAGLER ST 207 51 11 Government Center 2, 7, 11, 21, 212 HAVA NA Downtown 51, 77, 95, S, S 120 42 37 27 22 Bus Terminal 120, 207, 208, 40 SWEET WATER SW 8 ST 208 SOUTH BEACH TAMIAMI TRAIL 8 8 3, 21, 93 246, 277, 500 150 WEST Brickell 8, 24, B, 207, 208, 500 FIU Bus WESTCHES TER MIAMI THE FISHER 51 CORAL Terminal 8 ROADS ISLAND 40 TERRACE 8,11, 24, 71, 82 SW 17 AVE SW 24 ST CORAL WAY SW 42 AVE SW 37 AVE SW 27 AVE SW 22 AVE SW 12 AVE BRICKELL SW 137 AVE SW 26 ST 500 24 24 RICKENBACKER CSWY 24 Coconut Vizcaya 56 CORAL OLYMPIA 73 57 56 Douglas Grove 12,17, 24, 500 VIRGINIA 82 HEIGHTS LUDLAM GABLES 22, 27, Road 500 KEY PALMETTO EXPY AV E BIRD ROAD B SW 42 ST 40 40 82 3 7, 40, 42 TigertailS AveBayshore Dr 136, 500
SW 7 2 Grand Ave 40 117 AVE 72 University SW 67 AVE SW 87 AVE SW 82 AVE SW 57 AVE SW 122 AVE SW 112 AVE SW 107 AVE SW 102 AVE SW 97 AVE SW 92 AVE 56 SW 56 ST SW MILLER DRIVE 56 56 37 40 COCONUT GROVE KENDALE SUNSET 56, 500 LAKES 72 SNAPPER CREEK DR South 136 Miami 500 SOUTH MIAMI 157 AVE 152 AVE SW 72 ST SUNSET DRIVE COCOPLUM 272 72
SW 177 AVE SW 167 AVE SW 162 AVE Connects with Metrorail Serves Park & Ride Lot Overnight Service Serves Miami International Airport Connects with Tri-Rail SW SW 37, 57 SW 80 ST AVE SW 147 72, 500 137 71 878 204 SW 88 ST KEY 272 DON KENDALLSHULA EXPY DR Dadeland North 288 8 7, 88, 104, 204, Perrine D Quail Roost Dr/SW 117 Ave BISCA YNE 288 88 1 West Kendall 272, 288, 500 104 288A KENDALL Transit Terminal 874 Dadeland South 163 St Mall, 84 St Downtown Miami B B 72,88,104 35, 71 31, 34, 38, 52, 73, 2 D 104 252 THE HAMMOCKS SW 104 ST 252, 287, 500 OLD CUTLER RD 204 104 St Aventura Mall D Downtown Miami RED RD 3 KILLIAN DR 112 St 104 SW 112 ST 57 35 31 7 Dolphin Mall, Miami Intl Airport D Downtown Miami 52 LUDLAM RD LUDLAM 120 St SW 72 AVE FIU Maidique Campus D Brickell Metrorail SW 120 ST 8 124 St SW 112 AVE SW 107 AVE SW 102 AVE SW 97 AVE
SW 160 AVE Aventura D Downtown Miami
KROME AVE 9 136 128 St 136 St 136 Miami RICHMOND PINEC REST 10 Skylake Mall D Omni Metrobus Terminal SW 127 AVE FLORIDA’S TURNPIKE FLORIDA’S Executive SW 137 AVE HEIGHTS Airport 1 52 144 St 11 FIU Maidique Campus D Downtown Miami COUNTRY WALK 57 SW 152 ST SW 152 AVE 252 CORAL REEF DR 12 Northside Metrorail D Mercy Hospital 152 St 252 52 PALMETTO BAY 163 St Mall D Omni Metrobus Terminal 35 160 St 16 252 52 168 St SW 168 ST 17 Norwood D Vizcaya Metrorail RICHMOND DR SW 168 ST Zoo Miami 173 St SW 117 AVE (WEEKDAYS ONLY) MDC North Campus D 163 St Mall RICHMOND WEST AVE 1 19 287 SW 137 AVE 35 SW 112 AVE 52 W Indigo St 137 52 SW 184 ST 21 Northside Metrorail D Downtown Miami
SW 10 7 200 EUREKA DR SW 184 ST 52 184 St 137 1 22 163 St Mall D Coconut Grove Metrorail Marlin Rd 31 D SOUTH 1 LV B MIAMI 200 CUTLER 52 N 24 CORAL WAY LIMITED - West Dade D Brickell Metrorail HEIGHTS St 200 BAY A OLD CUTLER RD 35 E QUAIL ROOST DR SW 200 ST SW 127 AVE B IB AR SAGA BAY DOWNTOWN27 MIAMIMiami Gardens D Coconut Grove Metrorail
C RD GALLOWAY 112 Ave 200 31, 34B NW 18 ST 29 2(WEEKDAYS ONLY) Miami Lakes Education Center D Hialeah 137 211 3 NE 17 TERR NW 17 ST M 10 HAINLIN MILL DR SW 216 ST 216 St 35 200 246 21 NE 17 ST BUSWAY LOCAL - South Dade Government9 Center D16 Dadeland South Metrorail 220 St 287 31 10 32 A 52 NE 16 ST 34 10 3 DR ORE
ADRIENNE H NW 5 AVE 5 NW Carol City D Omni Metrobus Terminal A
32 S
NW 8 AVE 8 NW
NW 7 CT 7 NW NE 15 ST 38 GOULDS AVE 3 NW SCHOOL ARSHT CTR Y A SILVER PALM DR SW 232 ST 232 St BOARD 10 A 246 B 33 Hialeah D NE 79 St/Biscayne Blvd N M NW 14 ST NE 14 St SW 87 AVE 34 34 EXPRESS (WEEKDAYOmni Bus RUSH-HOUR Terminal ONLY) 93 244 St 95 246 120 34A: Florida City3, D 16, Dadeland 32, S, 120 SouthNE Metrorail 13 ST 120 M COCONUT PALM DR SW 248 ST 277 2 11 S SW 112 AVE 395 34B: S Dade Govt Ctr D Dadeland SouthNE 12 Metrorail ST
SW 147 AVE 77 SW 256 ST NARANJA 821 95 21 MUSEUM 35 MDC KendallAVE 2 NW Campus Florida City PARK 35 D NE 1 AVE 120 SW 152 AVE SW 157 AVE S DIXIE HWY NW 11 ST ELEVENTH STREET PRINCETON 2 11 SW 264 ST 264 St SW 268 ST NW 10 ST 36 DolphinNW 10 Mall, ST Doral, Miami SpringsNE 10 ST D Midtown9 Miami SW 162 AVE 35 9 BROWARD COUNTY SW 272 ST Hialeah D South Miami MetrorailNE 9 ST 272 37 HISTORIC
SW 167 AVE PARK NW 8 ST OVERTOWN/ AVE N MIAMI
St NE 8 ST WEST AVE 2 NE
2 11 BLVD BISCAYNE SW 280 ST 35A SW 280 ST LYRIC W SUNRISE BLVD SOUTH DADE TRANSITWAY 38 BUSWAY MAXTHEATRE Dadeland South Metrorail D Florida City THE REDLAND 280 95 St 3 FORT LAUDERDALE SW 288 ST FREEDOM TOWER
NW 6 ST AVE 5 NW 40 West21 Dade D DouglasNW Road 6 ST Metrorail S 95 SW 182 AVE 296 St AVE 7 NW 7 211 COLLEGE W BROWARD BLVD
AV E NW 5 ST SW 296 ST 35 211 NORTH NE 5 ST Ft. Lauderdale 7 Opa-locka Tri-Rail DWILKIE Douglas D. Road Metrorail 42 COLLEGE/ N FERGUSON, JR. BAYSIDE O NW 4 ST 2 NE 4 ST 93
KROME AVE 77 SW 304 ST 1 RT 95 SW 15 2 46 LIBERTY7 CITY CONNECTION (WEEKDAY RUSH-HOUR ONLY) DAVIE BLVD S H NW 1 AVE NW 3 ST AVE 1 NE Homestead Air O R 207/208 NE 3 ST 3 S
NW 6 AVE I U V Brownsville Metrorail D Seventh Avenue Transit Village CAMPBELL DR E SW 312 ST Reserve Base T R 95 35 H Government 120 312 St R D 277 NE 2 ST 1 SW 187 AVE I R 95 SW 137 AVE V FLAGLER MAX (WEEKDAYSCenter ONLY) West Dade D Downtown Miami 344 HOMESTEAD E 51 AVE 2 NW SW 320 ST Historic R 77 NW 1 ST 3 9 FIRST STREET NW 1 ST D 93 120 Homestead R
34 38 AVE 6 NW FLORIDA’S TURNPIKE 208 Dadeland South Metrorail3 MIAMI D South Dade Health Center 595 35 324 St 51 W FLAGLER52 ST 51 AVENUE 7 E FLAGLER ST
77 TURNPIKE FLORIDA’S SW 328 ST LUCY ST 11 3 FORT LAUDERDALE 328 St 11 SW 1 ST 120 95 FLORIDA KEYS SW 1 ST 51 207 54 Miami Gardens Dr/NW 87 Ave, Hialeah GardensSE 1 D ST Biscayne Blvd/NE 54 St HOLLYWOOD AIRPORT 35A 301 38 344 SW 2 ST2 THIRD STREET KNIGHT BAYFRONT SW 192 AVE 34, 38 CENTER PARK
FLORIDA BISCAYNE Government Center AVE 2 SE 35,35A HOMESTEAD 56 (WEEKDAYS DowntownONLY) West Dade 95D Miami Children’s Hospital BLVD BISCAYNE GRIFFIN RD CITY 2, 7, 9, 11, 21, 51, 344 St NAT’L PARK Bus Terminal SE 4 ST ALM DR SW 344 ST W PALM DR EVERGLADES National Parks 77, 95, S, 120, 207, 207 3, 21, 93 Ft. Lauderdale-Hollywood Shuttle 301, 302 441 International Airport 344 NATIONAL PARK 208, 246,57 277, 500(WEEKDAYS208 ONLY) Miami IntlRIVERWALK Airport D Jackson South Hospital Operated 302 500 STIRLING RD by City of FIFTH STREET METROBUS ROUTES Homestead 62 Hialeah D BiscayneMETRORAIL Blvd / 62 St A1 302 SE 5 ST Limited-Stop Service DANIA
301 Key AVE S MIAMI 1 Dolphin Mall D MDC Kendall Campus Express Service
SW 2 AVE 2 SW TOWER RD TOWER Largo SW 7 ST 71 Sheridan Street 95 SHERIDAN ST SE 7 ST East–West Local-Stop Service 8 BRICKELL CITY 207 BRICKELL KEY 344 301 302 SW 8 ST CENTRE North–South Local-Stop Service TAFT ST CARD SOUND RD 208 72 West Kendall Terminal, Miller Square D South Miami Metrorail Tavernier 8 (EIGHTH S DIXIE HWY STREET)SE 8 ST Local Shuttle or Circulator Service SW 376 ST HOLLYWOOD Islamorada 7395 Miami Gardens Dr & NW 73 Ave Park & Ride D DadelandMETROBUS South DESTINATIONS Metrorail Hollywood BRICKELLAVE HOLLYWOOD BLVD
SE 10 ST 8, 24 Service Endpoint - Single Route Type SW 1 AVE 1 SW SW 8 AVE 8 SW TENTH STREET 344 115 301 75 Miami Lakes D FIU Biscayne BayPROMENADE Campus 120, C Service Endpoints - Multiple Route Types 301 SW 11 ST Brickell 1 Big Pine Key 8, 24, B, Terminal Norwood D Downtown Miami PEMBROKE RD Lower Keys Marathon 77 SW 12 ST 207/208, 500 Metrorail Station Shuttle SW 13 ST Operated by SE 13 ST Metromover Station 79 STREET MAX24 (WEEKDAY RUSH-HOUR ONLY) Northside Metrorail 72 St / Miami Beach HALLANDALE BEACH BLVD Key West Transit 79 SW 15 RD B D Key West 500 THIS IS A GENERAL REFERENCE MAP. CONSULT INDIVIDUAL ROUTE MAPS FOR DETAILS. SW 3 AVE FINANCIAL 82 WESTCHESTER CIRCULATORDISTRICT (WEEKDAYS ONLY) FIU Maidique Campus D Tropical Park 87 Palmetto Metrorail, Doral D Dadeland North Metrorail 88 Dadeland North Metrorail D West Kendall Terminal 93 BISCAYNE MAX (WEEKDAYS ONLY) Downtown Miami D Aventura Mall Figure 1: Metrobus 95System95 EXPRESS GOLDEN GLADES Map (WEEKDAY RUSH-HOUR ONLY) Carol City, Aventura Mall, Golden Glades D Downtown Miami, Civic Center 95 EXPRESS DADE BROWARD (WEEKDAY RUSH-HOUR ONLY) Connects with Metrorail Serves Park & Ride Lot ROUTE Overnight 195: Broward Service Blvd D Downtown Serves Miami Miami International Airport Connects with Tri-Rail METROBUS ROUTES ROUTE 196: Sheridan St D Downtown Miami Connects with Metrorail Serves Park & Ride Lot Overnight Service Serves Miami International Airport Connects with Tri-Rail ROUTE 295: Broward Blvd D Civic Center 1 Perrine D Quail Roost Dr/SW 117 Ave ROUTE 296: Sheridan St D Civic Center 1 Perrine D Quail Roost Dr/SW 117 Ave 99 Miami Gardens Dr & NW 73 Ave Park & Ride D Aventura Mall 2 163 St Mall, 84 St D Downtown Miami 2 163 St Mall, 84 St D Downtown Miami A ROUTE 101: Omni D 20th Street & West Avenue / Miami Beach 3 Aventura Mall D Downtown Miami 3 Aventura Mall D Downtown Miami B ROUTE 102: Brickell Metrorail D Key Biscayne 7 Dolphin Mall, Miami Intl Airport D Downtown Miami 7 Dolphin Mall, Miami Intl Airport DC DowntownROUTE 103:Miami South Beach D Mt. Sinai Medical Center 8 FIU Maidique Campus D Brickell Metrorail 8 FIU Maidique Campus D Brickell 104MetrorailWest Kendall Terminal D Dadeland North Metrorail 9 Aventura D Downtown Miami 9 Aventura D Downtown Miami E ROUTE 105: Golden Glades D Hallandale Beach 10 Skylake Mall D Omni Metrobus Terminal G ROUTE 107: 94 St / Miami Beach D MDC North Campus 10 Skylake Mall D Omni Metrobus Terminal 11 FIU Maidique Campus D Downtown Miami H ROUTE 108: 163 Street Mall D Haulover Park 11 FIU Maidique Campus D Downtown Miami 12 Northside Metrorail D Mercy Hospital J ROUTE 110: Miami Intl Airport D 41 St / Miami Beach 16 163 St Mall D Omni Metrobus Terminal 12 Northside Metrorail D Mercy HospitalL ROUTE 112: Lincoln Rd D Hialeah Metrorail 17 Norwood D Vizcaya Metrorail 16 163 St Mall D Omni Metrobus TerminalM ROUTE 113: Civic Center D Mt. Sinai Hospital 19 (WEEKDAYS ONLY) MDC North Campus D 163 St Mall 17 Norwood D Vizcaya Metrorail 115 MID-NORTH BEACH CONNECTION - Collins Ave / 88 St D Lincoln Rd 21 Northside Metrorail D Downtown Miami 19 (WEEKDAYS ONLY) MDC North CampusS DROUTE 163 St119: Mall Downtown Miami D Aventura Mall 22 163 St Mall D Coconut Grove Metrorail 120 BEACH MAX Downtown Miami D Aventura Mall 21 Northside Metrorail D Downtown Miami 24 CORAL WAY LIMITED - West Dade D Brickell Metrorail 132 TRI-RAIL DORAL SHUTTLE (WEEKDAY RUSH-HOUR ONLY): Doral D Hialeah Market Tri-Rail 163 St Mall D Coconut Grove Metrorail 27 Miami Gardens D Coconut Grove Metrorail 22 135 Hialeah Metrorail, Miami Lakes D FIU Biscayne Bay Campus 29 (WEEKDAYS ONLY) Miami Lakes Education Center D Hialeah 24 CORAL WAY LIMITED - West Dade136 D Brickell(WEEKDAY Metrorail RUSH-HOUR ONLY) SW 136 St / US1 D Douglas Road Metrorail 31 BUSWAY LOCAL - South Dade Government Center D Dadeland South Metrorail 27 Miami Gardens D Coconut Grove137 MetrorailWEST DADE CONNECTION Dolphin Mall D South Dade Gov Center 32 Carol City D Omni Metrobus Terminal 29 (WEEKDAYS ONLY) Miami Lakes Education150 MIAMI Center BEACH D AIRPORTHialeah EXPRESS Miami Intl Airport D South Beach 33 Hialeah D NE 79 St/Biscayne Blvd 183 Miami Gardens Dr & NW 73 Ave Park & Ride D Aventura Mall 31 BUSWAY LOCAL - South Dade Government Center D Dadeland South Metrorail 34 34 EXPRESS (WEEKDAY RUSH-HOUR ONLY) 200 CUTLER BAY LOCAL (NO SUNDAYS) 34A: Florida City D Dadeland South Metrorail Carol City D Omni Metrobus Terminal 34B: S Dade Govt Ctr D Dadeland South Metrorail 32 202 LITTLE HAITI CONNECTION Biscayne Shopping Plaza, NW 5 AVE / 83 St D Miami Design District 35 MDC Kendall Campus D Florida City 33 Hialeah D NE 79 St/Biscayne Blvd204 KILLIAN KAT (WEEKDAY RUSH-HOUR ONLY) West Kendall Terminal D Dadeland North Metrorail 36 Dolphin Mall, Doral, Miami Springs D Midtown Miami 34 34 EXPRESS (WEEKDAY RUSH-HOUR207 ONLY)LITTLE HAVANA CONNECTION (CLOCKWISE) Downtown Miami, Brickell D SW 25 Ave 37 Hialeah D South Miami Metrorail 34A: Florida City D Dadeland South208 MetrorailLITTLE HAVANA CONNECTION (COUNTERCLOCKWISE) Downtown Miami, Brickell D SW 27 Ave 34B: S Dade Govt Ctr D Dadeland South Metrorail 38 BUSWAY MAX Dadeland South Metrorail D Florida City 210 SKYLAKE CIRCULATOR Skylake Mall D 163 Street Mall 35 MDC Kendall Campus D Florida City 40 West Dade D Douglas Road Metrorail 211 OVERTOWN CIRCULATOR (WEEKDAYS ONLY) 36 Dolphin Mall, Doral, Miami Springs D Midtown Miami 42 Opa-locka Tri-Rail D Douglas Road Metrorail 212 SWEETWATER CIRCULATOR (WEEKDAYS ONLY) 46 LIBERTY CITY CONNECTION (WEEKDAY RUSH-HOUR ONLY) 37 Hialeah D South Miami Metrorail217 BUNCHE PARK CIRCULATOR (WEEKDAYS ONLY) NW 127 St / 33 Ave D N Dade Health Center Brownsville Metrorail D Seventh Avenue Transit Village 38 BUSWAY MAX Dadeland South Metrorail238 EAST-WEST D Florida CONNECTION City (WEEKDAYS ONLY) Dolphin Mall D Miami Int. Airport 51 FLAGLER MAX (WEEKDAYS ONLY) West Dade D Downtown Miami 246 NIGHT OWL Downtown Miami D 163 St Mall 52 Dadeland South Metrorail D South Dade Health Center 40 West Dade D Douglas Road Metrorail 252 CORAL REEF MAX Country Walk D Dadeland South Metrorail, Zoo Miami (Weekends Only) 54 Miami Gardens Dr/NW 87 Ave, Hialeah Gardens D Biscayne Blvd/NE 54 St 42 Opa-locka Tri-Rail D Douglas Road Metrorail 254 BROWNSVILLE CIRCULATOR (WEEKDAYS ONLY) Caleb Center D Jefferson Reeves Park, Hialeah (Thursday only) 56 (WEEKDAYS ONLY) West Dade D Miami Children’s Hospital 46 LIBERTY CITY CONNECTION (WEEKDAY RUSH-HOUR ONLY) 267 LUDLAM LIMITED (WEEKDAY RUSH-HOUR ONLY) NW 186 St/87 Ave D Okeechobee Metrorail 57 (WEEKDAYS ONLY) Miami Intl Airport D Jackson South Hospital Brownsville Metrorail D Seventh Avenue Transit Village 272 SUNSET KAT (WEEKDAY RUSH-HOUR ONLY) West Kendall Terminal D Dadeland North Metrorail 62 Hialeah D Biscayne Blvd / 62 St 51 FLAGLER MAX (WEEKDAYS ONLY) West Dade D Downtown Miami 277 NW 7 AVENUE MAX (WEEKDAY RUSH-HOUR ONLY) Downtown Miami D Golden Glades Park & Ride 71 Dolphin Mall D MDC Kendall Campus 52 Dadeland South Metrorail D South Dade Health Center NORTH POINTE CIRCULATOR (NO SUNDAYS) Miami Gardens Dr & NW 73 Ave Park & Ride D NW 57 Ave/NW 176 St 72 West Kendall Terminal, Miller Square D South Miami Metrorail 286 Miami Gardens Dr/NW 87 Ave, Hialeah Gardens D Biscayne Blvd/NE 54 St 54 287 SAGA BAY MAX (WEEKDAY RUSH-HOUR ONLY) S Dade Health Center D Dadeland South Metrorail 73 Miami Gardens Dr & NW 73 Ave Park & Ride D Dadeland South Metrorail 56 (WEEKDAYS ONLY) West Dade D Miami Children’sKENDALL CRUISER Hospital (WEEKDAY RUSH-HOUR ONLY) Miami Lakes D FIU Biscayne Bay Campus 288 75 West Kendall Terminal, SW 127 Ave Park & Ride D Dadeland North Metrorail (WEEKDAYS ONLY) Miami Intl Airport Jackson South Hospital 77 Norwood D Downtown Miami 57 297D 27th AVE ORANGE MAX (WEEKDAYS ONLY) Miami Intl Airport D Miami Gardens 79 79 STREET MAX (WEEKDAY RUSH-HOUR ONLY) Northside Metrorail D 72 St / Miami Beach62 Hialeah D Biscayne Blvd / 62 St301 DADE-MONROE EXPRESS Florida City D Marathon Key 82 WESTCHESTER CIRCULATOR (WEEKDAYS ONLY) FIU Maidique Campus D Tropical Park 71 Dolphin Mall D MDC Kendall Campus302 CARD SOUND EXPRESS Florida City D Ocean Reef Club 87 Palmetto Metrorail, Doral D Dadeland North Metrorail WEEKEND EXPRESS (WEEKENDS ONLY) Miami Intl Airport Dolphin Mall 72 West Kendall Terminal, Miller Square338 D South Miami Metrorail D 88 Dadeland North Metrorail D West Kendall Terminal 344 (WEEKDAYS ONLY) Florida City D MDC Homestead Campus 73 Miami Gardens Dr & NW 73 Ave Park & Ride D Dadeland South Metrorail 93 BISCAYNE MAX (WEEKDAYS ONLY) Downtown Miami D Aventura Mall 500 MIDNIGHT OWL Dadeland South Metrorail D Downtown Miami 95 95 EXPRESS GOLDEN GLADES (WEEKDAY RUSH-HOUR ONLY) 75 Miami Lakes D FIU Biscayne Bay Campus Carol City, Aventura Mall, Golden Glades D Downtown Miami, Civic Center Norwood Downtown Miami 95 EXPRESS DADE BROWARD (WEEKDAY RUSH-HOUR ONLY) 77 D ROUTE 195: Broward Blvd D Downtown Miami 79 79 STREET MAX (WEEKDAY RUSH-HOUR ONLY) Northside Metrorail D 72 St / Miami Beach ROUTE 196: Sheridan St D Downtown Miami ROUTE 295: Broward Blvd D Civic Center 82 WESTCHESTER CIRCULATOR (WEEKDAYS ONLY) FIU Maidique Campus D Tropical Park ROUTE 296: Sheridan St D Civic Center Palmetto Metrorail, Doral D Dadeland North Metrorail 99 Miami Gardens Dr & NW 73 Ave Park & Ride D Aventura Mall 87 A ROUTE 101: Omni D 20th Street & West Avenue / Miami Beach 88 Dadeland North Metrorail D West Kendall Terminal B ROUTE 102: Brickell Metrorail D Key Biscayne 93 BISCAYNE MAX (WEEKDAYS ONLY) Downtown Miami D Aventura Mall SPECIFIC ROUTE INFORMATION / TRIP PLANNING: C ROUTE 103: South Beach D Mt. Sinai Medical Center 95 95 EXPRESS GOLDEN GLADES (WEEKDAY RUSH-HOUR ONLY) 104 West Kendall Terminal D Dadeland North Metrorail Carol City, Aventura Mall, Golden Glades D Downtown Miami, Civic Center www.miamidade.gov/transitE ROUTE 105: Golden Glades D Hallandale Beach MDT 95Tracker EXPRESS DADE BROWARDApp (WEEKDAY RUSH-HOUR 311 OR ONLY) 305.468.5900 (TDD: 305.468.5402) ROUTE 195: Broward Blvd D Downtown Miami G ROUTE 107: 94 St / Miami Beach D MDC North Campus ROUTE 196: Sheridan St D Downtown Miami H ROUTE 108: 163 Street Mall D Haulover Park ROUTE 295: Broward Blvd D Civic Center J ROUTE 110: Miami Intl Airport D 41 St / Miami Beach @GoMiamiDade ROUTE EASY 296: Sheridan PAY St MIAMI D Civic Center | MDT TRANSIT WATCH L ROUTE 112: Lincoln Rd D Hialeah Metrorail 99 Miami Gardens Dr & NW 73 Ave Park & Ride D Aventura Mall M ROUTE 113: Civic Center D Mt. Sinai Hospital DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIONA ROUTE 101: Omni D AND20th Street PUBLIC & West WORKSAvenue / Miami Beach 115 MID-NORTH BEACH CONNECTION - Collins Ave / 88 St D Lincoln Rd B ROUTE 102: Brickell Metrorail D Key Biscayne S ROUTE 119: Downtown Miami D Aventura Mall C ROUTE 103: South Beach D Mt. Sinai Medical Center 120 BEACH MAX Downtown Miami D Aventura Mall 104 METRORAIL JUNE 2018
to West Palm Beach
to West West to Palm Beach METRORAIL 27 TRANSFER PALMETTO OKEECHOBEE NORTHSIDE NW 79 ST 79 S
MEDLEY DR. MARTIN WESTGATE LUTHER KING, JR. 826 HIALEAH TRI-RAIL BROWNSVILLE
HIALEAH MARKET EARLINGTON HEIGHTS MIAMI TRANSFER ORANGE BETWEEN AND GREEN LINES
SPRINGS BLVD BISCAYNE JULI RENTAL CAR MIA TERMINAL 112 195 CENTER ALLAPATTAH
MIAMI AIRPORT WYNWOOD
NW 27 AVE NW 27 SANTA MIAMI CLARA 95 1 INTERNATIONAL CIVIC AIRPORT CENTER CULMER 836 395 MIAMI STATION HISTORIC OVERTOWN / LYRIC THEATRE DOWN- TOWN GOVERNMENT CENTER LITTLE HAVANA SW 8 ST / TAMIAMI TRAIL 41 BRICKELL THE ROADS CORAL WAY VIZCAYA
SW 27 AVE SW 27 S DIXIE HWY COCONUT GROVE
CORAL GABLES DOUGLAS ROAD UNIVERSITY
SOUTH MIAMI 826 SW 88 ST / DADELAND NORTH KENDALL DR
to DADELAND SOUTH
City TRANSFER TO SOUTH DADE TRANSITWAY Homestead& Florida NORTH 1 PINECREST Figure 2: Metrorail System Map
METRORAIL CONNECTING SERVICES CONNEC ion Orange Line / Station Metromover Metromov on Green Line / Station Tri-Rail (tri-rail.com) Tri-Rail (t th Lines Station Serving Both Lines Brightline (gobrightline.com) Brightline MIA Mover (miami-airport.comMIA) Move Downtown ExpressStation Served by Downtown Express South Dade Transitway South Dad nsfer Station Recommended Transfer Station with MetromoverStation Connects with Metromover with Tri-Rail Station Connects with Tri-Rail with Airport Station Connects with Airport with BrightlineStation Connects with Brightline
www.miamidade.gov/transit INFORMATION : INFORMACION : ENFOMASYON 311 OR 305.468.5900 (TTY: 305.468.5402)
@GOMIAMIDADE MDT TRACKER • EASY PAY MIAMI METROMOVER JUNE 2018
NE 15 ST ADRIENNE ARSHT CENTER SCHOOL BOARD
I-195 MACARTHUR CSWY
ELEVENTH MUSEUM N MIAMI AVE STREET PARK
BRIGHTLINE PARK WEST WILKIE D. COLLEGE FERGUSON, JR. NORTH TRANSFER TO TRANSFER TO FREEDOM TOWER BRIGHTLINE INNER LOOP NE 6 ST PORT BLVD COLLEGE BAYSIDE TRANSFER TO
OMNI LOOP BLVD BISCAYNE GOVERNMENT FIRST STREET CENTER TRANSFER TO METRORAIL FLAGLER ST KNIGHT MIAMI AVENUE CENTER BAYFRONT TRANSFER TO PARK INNER LOOP
I-95 RAMP THIRD STREET RIVERWALK BISCAYNE BLVD WAY MIAMI RIVER TRANSFER TO BRICKELL LOOP FIFTH STREET METRORAIL S MIAMI AVE BRICKELL CITY CENTRE SW 8 ST (EIGHTH STREET) BRICKELL KEY DR TENTH STREET PROMENADE
BRICKELL TRANSFER TO METRORAIL BRICKELL AVENUE FINANCIAL DISTRICT
Figure 3: Metromover System Map LEGEND
OMNI LOOP INNER LOOP BRICKELL LOOP
STATION SERVING SINGLE LOOP
STATION SERVING MULTIPLE LOOPS
RECOMMENDED TRANSFER STATION
DIRECTION OF TRAVEL
METRORAIL
ADRIENNE ARSHT CENTER SCHOOL BOARD INNER LOOP BRICKELL LOOP Serves Downtown Downtown to Brickell (Central Business District) (South Extension) WILKIE D. ELEVENTH MUSEUM FERGUSON, JR. COLLEGE STREET PARK TRANSFER TO NORTH WILKIE D. BRIGHTLINE PARK WEST FERGUSON, JR. TRANSFER TO COLLEGE WILKIE D. COLLEGE BRIGHTLINE NORTH COLLEGE BAYSIDE TRANSFER TO OMNI LOOP FERGUSON, JR. NORTH COLLEGE TRANSFER TO TRANSFER TO FREEDOM TOWER BRIGHTLINE INNER LOOP BAYSIDE GOVERNMENT FIRST STREET TRANSFER TO CENTER OMNI LOOP TRANSFER TO METRORAIL COLLEGE GOVERNMENT FIRST STREET CENTER KNIGHT BAYSIDE TRANSFER TO METRORAIL BAYFRONT AND BRICKELL LOOP CENTER TRANSFER TO PARK GOVERNMENT FIRST STREET MIAMI AVENUE INNER LOOP CENTER BAYFRONT KNIGHT PARK TRANSFER TO METRORAIL CENTER THIRD STREET RIVERWALK BAYFRONT PARK KNIGHT FIFTH STREET CENTER THIRD BRICKELL CITY CENTRE STREET (EIGHTH STREET) TRANSFER TO BRICKELL LOOP TENTH STREET PROMENADE OMNI LOOP Downtown to Omni BRICKELL (North Extension) TRANSFER TO METRORAIL FINANCIAL DISTRICT
www.miamidade.gov/transit INFORMATION : INFORMACION : ENFOMASYON 311 OR 305.468.5900 (TTY: 305.468.5402)
@GOMIAMIDADE MDT TRACKER • EASY PAY MIAMI An overview of the MDT transit system characteristics is provided in Table 1. This information was obtained from the Miami-Dade County Transit Development Plan FY 2019-2028.
Table 1: MDT Transit System Characteristics by Mode (2017)
System Characteristics Metrobus Metrorail Metromover Number of Routes 95* 2 3 Number of Stops/Stations 9,244 23 21 Route Miles 2,199 24.8 4.4 Total Fleet Size 824 136 26 Annual Revenue Miles 29,713,685 7,857,582 1,122,584 Annual Boardings 57,618,210 19,984,735 9,463,403 Note: * Includes 16 contracted routes. 2.1.2 Ridership Trends – MDT System Historical monthly weekday ridership data was obtained from Miami-Dade County’s ridership reports for the month of March for five years (2014-2018) and is summarized in Table 2, Table 3, and Figure 4. March was selected for this analysis because it is a representative month of peak seasonal ridership. As shown in Table 2, systemwide ridership for all transit modes decreased over the five-year period. Overall, there were 1.74 million fewer monthly weekday transit boardings in March 2018 in comparison to March 2014. Metrobus experienced the most significant decline in monthly ridership of the three modes at -29%, followed by Metrorail (-9%) and Metromover (-8%). Further, Metrobus accounted for 89% of the total ridership decline with 1.55 million fewer weekday boardings during the month of March over the five (5) year period. As a result, Metrobus’ mode share decreased from 68% in March 2014 to 62% in March 2018. Metrobus ridership decline began in 2015, whereas Metrorail and Metromover ridership declines began in 2017. The most significant year to year ridership decline was from March 2017 to March 2018, with the transit system recording 1.12 million fewer boardings.
Table 2: Total Weekday Boardings for March by Mode (2014-2018). Mode Share
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Mode Mode Mode Mode Mode Mode Boardings Share Boardings Share Boardings Share Boardings Share Boardings Share % % % % % Metrobus 5,265,534 68 5,478,734 68 4,833,560 64 4,513,157 63 3,719,191 62
Metrorail 1,606,072 21 1,707,781 21 1,747,930 23 1,686,955 24 1,460,487 24
Metromover 740,543 10 769,463 10 836,323 11 783,199 11 684,041 11
Total 7,731,909 100 8,081,029 100 7,545,143 100 7,120,323 100 5,994,084 100 Note: Due to rounding the percentages may not add up to 100.
6 Table 3: Total Weekday Boardings for March by Mode (2014-2018). Annual Percent Change
% % % % % Change 2014 2015 Change 2016 Change 2017 Change 2018 Change Mode 2014 - Boardings Boardings 2014 - Boardings 2015 - Boardings 2016 - Boardings 2017 - 2018 2015 2016 2017 2018 Metrobus 5,265,534 5,478,734 4% 4,833,560 -12% 4,513,157 -7% 3,719,191 -18% -29% Metrorail 1,606,072 1,707,781 6% 1,747,930 2% 1,686,955 -3% 1,460,487 -13% -9% Metromover 740,543 769,463 4% 836,323 9% 783,199 -6% 684,041 -13% -8% Total 7,731,909 8,081,029 5% 7,545,143 -7% 7,120,323 -6% 5,994,084 -16% -22%
MDT Boardings by Mode 9
8 s n o i l
l 7 i M n i p
i 6 h s r e d i 5 R ) h c r 4 a M ( y l
h 3 t n o M
l 2 a t o T 1
- 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Metrobus Metrorail Metromover
Figure 4: Systemwide Cumulative Weekday Ridership for March (2014-2018)
Metrobus – Top Five Routes Analysis Average weekday ridership data for the five Metrobus routes with the highest weekday average ridership for March is summarized in Table 4 and Figure 5. These include routes 119-S (Miami Beach), 11 (Flagler Street), 77 (NW 7 Avenue), 112-L (NW 79 Street and Collins Avenue), and 27 (NW 27 Avenue). MDT maps for these routes are included in Appendix A. Average weekday ridership for all five routes decreased between 2014 to 2018. Route 119-S experienced the largest decrease (39%) from 14,601 average weekday riders in 2014 to 8,863 average weekday riders in 2018. To assess if the ridership decline is attributable to reduction of service, “revenue miles” data was also analyzed. The data shows that three of the routes saw a reduction in revenue miles between 2014 and 2018 (Route 119-S, Route 11, and Route 112-L). These three routes experienced the largest decrease in average weekday ridership. However, two routes (77 and 27), experienced negligible to no reduction in revenue miles yet still experienced between
7 25 to 30 percent decrease in ridership. To further evaluate the impact of revenue miles on ridership, weekday ridership data was normalized by revenue miles (ridership divided by revenue miles) as shown in Table 4 and Figure 6. The normalized data indicate all five routes experience ridership decline per revenue mile by between 25 percent to 30 percent. These results indicate that there may be contributing factors other than the amount of service being provided that are leading to a reduction in ridership.
Table 4: Historical Weekday Ridership of Top 5 Metrobus Routes
% Change Route 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Between 2014 and 2018 Average Weekday Ridership Route 119 - S 14,601 13,672 11,308 8,615 8,863 -39% Route 11 12,687 12,918 10,607 10,018 8,157 -36% Route 77 10,585 10,006 9,043 9,252 7,707 -27% Route 112 - L 11,516 11,230 8,945 7,528 7,353 -36% Route 27 10,181 9,344 8,269 8,531 7,350 -28% Revenue Miles Route 119 - S 3,895 3,895 3,899 3,962 3,449 -11% Route 11 2,116 2,116 2,065 2,065 1,810 -14% Route 77 2,945 2,945 2,920 2,930 2,930 -0.5% Route 112 - L 2,701 2,701 2,720 2,709 2,462 -9% Route 27 2,610 2,610 2,610 2,610 2,610 0% Average Weekday Ridership Normalized by Revenue Miles Route 119 - S 3.7 3.5 2.9 2.2 2.6 -30% Route 11 6.0 6.1 5.1 4.9 4.5 -25% Route 77 3.6 3.4 3.1 3.2 2.6 -28% Route 112 - L 4.3 4.2 3.3 2.8 3.0 -30% Route 27 3.9 3.6 3.2 3.3 2.8 -28%
8 Figure 5: Historical Ridership (Average Weekday) Performance for Top Five Metrobus Routes
Figure 6: Historical Ridership (Average Weekday) by Revenue Miles for Top Five Metrobus Routes
9 Metrorail – Top Five Stations Analysis Average weekday boardings data for the five Metrorail stations with the highest weekday average boardings for the month of March is summarized in Table 5. Government Center and Dadeland North experienced the highest percentage decline in boardings, whereas Brickell experienced a slight increase during the five-year period.
Table 5: Metrorail Historical Average Weekday Boardings by Station for March
% Change Station 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Between 2014 and 2018 Government Center 13,163 13,094 12,741 12,312 10,818 -18% Dadeland South 8,036 7,958 7,687 7,204 7,289 -9% Dadeland North 7,195 7,356 7,047 6,713 6,029 -16% Civic Center 6,250 6,351 6,332 6,243 5,679 -9% Brickell 6,078 6,655 6,920 6,593 6,319 4%
Metromover – Top Five Stations Analysis Average weekday boardings data for the five Metromover stations with the highest weekday average boardings for the month of March is summarized in Table 6. With the exception of Brickell, the other stations experienced a decline in boardings. Metrorail station analysis also indicated an increase in boardings at the Brickell station.
Table 6: Metromover Historical Average Weekday Boardings by Station for March
% Change Station 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Between 2014 and 2018 Government Center 9,979 9,505 9,455 8,675 7,850 -21% Brickell 3,143 3,358 3,571 3,615 3,373 7% Bayfront Park 3,492 3,309 3,479 3,290 3,089 -12% College/Bayside 2,794 2,636 2,758 2,407 2,198 -21% Omni 3,184 2,728 2,771 2,178 2,030 -36%
10 2.2 Factors Influencing Transit Ridership in Miami-Dade County
The possible factors influencing transit ridership can be broadly categorized as either internal to the transit system (e.g., service reductions) or external (e.g., increased automobile ownership). The following sections provide a review of internal and external factors in the context of decreasing transit ridership in Miami-Dade County. 2.2.1 Potential Internal Factors Service Adjustments Transit agencies adjust service for a variety of reasons. The most common reasons include increasing/decreasing demand along an existing transit route, to serve new markets/areas, budgetary shortfalls that require reduction of service, and strategic decisions such as replacing one transit mode with another. Since Metrobus is the most robust transit system in Miami-Dade County, this section presents an assessment of service adjustments implemented in 2018, as summarized in the Miami-Dade County Transit Development Plan FY 2019-2028. Appendix B identifies the routes that were subjected to service adjustments in 2018. Overall, 16 routes experienced service frequency reductions, 15 routes experienced service improvements, one new route (248) was added, and one route (249) was discontinued. The revenue miles operated (Metrobus, Metrorail and Metromover) slightly increased from 38.4 million in 2016 to 38.7 million in 2017 (0.7% increase). However, during the same period, systemwide ridership for the same three modes decreased by 9.8%.
Figure 7 shows that Metrobus ridership started to tail off around the end of 2014, which resulted in the DTPW scaling the service down to match the demand, thereof. What this highlights is that the Metrobus service reductions were made in response to the ridership decline.
Figure 7: Metrobus Revenue Miles vs. Ridership (2013 – 2018)
11 Service Reliability and Quality of Service Even though transit reliability can be defined using several metrics, the most common measure from the transit user standpoint is on-time performance. If the service does not meet the published schedule and travel time on a consistent basis, the customers tend to lose faith in the system, which may result in ridership decline. Table 7 summarizes on-time performance by mode and the performance target set in the Transit Development Plan (TDP). As shown in Table 7, on-time performance decreased in 2017 for both Metrobus and Metrorail services. While Metrobus on-time performance has been below par for the past four years, it was not until 2017 that Metrorail on-time performance has dipped below the target value.
Table 7: Historical On-Time Performance of Transit Vehicles Per Mode
Metrorail Metrobus Year On-time Performance (Target) 2014 96.6% (95%) 74.2% (78%) 2015 96.0% (95%) 67.0% (78%) 2016 97.0% (95%) 74.0% (78%) 2017 87.6% (95%) 69.2% (78%)
Another indicator of the transit system performance is the feedback submitted by users through Miami- Dade County’s 311 Service. Over 37,000 comments provided by transit users between June 2016 and March 2018 were summarized based on common themes, as shown in Table 8. Almost 20,000 (52 percent) of the reported complaints are service-related (e.g., transit vehicles not arriving, service running late, vehicles not stopping to pick up riders, etc.), followed by around 4,000 (11 percent) complaints on operator behavior
.
12 Table 9 provides a breakdown of complaints by mode. Overall, 84 percent of complaints were related to Metrobus, followed by Metrorail (13 percent). It is interesting to note that there were more equipment/facilities maintenance and passenger incident complaints associated with Metrorail than other modes.
Table 8: Breakdown of Miami-Dade County Transit 311 Complaints
Number of Complaint Type Percentage Complaints Service Related 19,265 52% Operator Behavior 3,991 11% Driving Safety 2,706 7% Service Request Related 2,638 7% Equipment/Facilities Maintenance 3,114 8% Commendation 1,928 5% Planning and Scheduling 1,348 4% Office Administration 1,331 4% Passenger Incident 584 2% Fares and Transfers 158 < 1% Other 71 < 1% Total 37,134 100%
Table 9: Breakdown of Miami-Dade County Transit 311 Complaints by Mode
Complaint Type Bus Metrorail Metromover Contracted Other Total Service Related 16,469 2,373 74 294 26 19,236 Operator Behavior 3,503 150 0 31 7 3,691 Driving Safety 2,598 64 2 35 3 2,702 Service Request 2,496 105 9 14 11 2,635 Equipment Maintenance 1,106 931 95 15 5 2,152 Commendation 1,803 67 0 9 46 1,925 Planning and Scheduling 1,265 62 1 12 7 1,347 Office Administration 1,061 178 21 16 50 1,326 Facilities and 393 452 87 1 24 957 Maintenance Passenger Incident 165 381 17 5 16 584 Employee Behavior 121 115 4 16 36 292 Fares and Transfers 145 8 0 4 1 158 Total 31,125 4,886 310 452 232 37,005
13 Municipal Transit Circulators The potential impacts of municipal transit circulators are considered internal since municipal services are planned in coordination with Miami-Dade County to be complementary to the MDT routes and are subject to the County’s service planning guidelines. Further, the County may adjust the MDT routes with the introduction of local circulators. There are approximately 25 municipality-operated transit systems in Miami-Dade County. Figure 8 shows a map of all Miami-Dade County municipal circulators.
The Citizen’s Independent Transportation Trust (CITT), which oversees the People’s Transportation Plan funded with the half-penny sales surtax in Miami-Dade County, provided historical annual ridership data for municipal transit circulator systems and are summarized in Table 10. Figure 9 shows the total annual ridership for the top five circulator systems and for all other systems. A summary of observations is listed below.
· Overall ridership of municipal circulators increased from 7.4 million in 2013 to 10.9 million in 2017, indicating there is a continuing demand for transit in Miami-Dade County. · Fourteen municipal circulators experienced an increase in ridership whereas 11 municipal circulators experienced a decrease in ridership. · There is no clear correlation between ridership trends and the size of a municipality in terms of population (source: Census estimates). · Miami, Miami Beach, and Doral transit circulator systems collectively experienced 3.7 million additional trips between 2013 and 2017. The City of Miami’s trolley system experienced a 2.5 million increase in ridership between 2013 and 2017. During this period, the number of trolley routes in Miami also increased from seven to 12. · Hialeah, which is the second most populous municipality in Miami-Dade County, experienced the largest ridership decline. Hialeah operates two routes and there were no changes to the services during this period. Since the inception of service, Hialeah charges a fee for using its transit system. · Given the increase in ridership is not universal across all the circulators, there is no clear indication that the circulators are negatively impacting MDT ridership. In general, local circulators are distinct from MDT bus routes given that these services are more access oriented in nature, by connecting trip generators and attractors within communities. Therefore, extensive duplication of MDT bus routes typically does not occur.
14 Table 10: Municipal Circulators in Miami-Dade County
Change in Ridership Population Municipality 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 between 2017 2013-2017 Bay Harbor Islands 6,100 8,700 7,786 8,000 7,850 1,750 6,006 City of Aventura 285,000 276,434 270,182 274,223 265,532 - 19,468 38,202 City of Coral Gables 1,290,000 1,158,627 1,147,358 1,185,537 1,120,774 - 169,226 51,095 City of Doral 312,862 362,470 445,275 548,960 587,045 274,183 61,130 City of Hialeah 510,000 489,284 410,991 338,019 261,902 - 248,098 239,673 City of Homestead 120,000 164,150 142,590 111,258 137,692 17,692 69,907 City of Miami 2,600,000 3,643,872 3,683,299 4,581,709 5,087,070 2,487,070 463,347 City of Miami Beach 1,309,300 1,231,806 2,084,831 1,788,334 2,248,578 939,278 92,307 City of Miami Gardens - - 14,261 76,619 83,338 83,338 113,750 City of Miami Springs 30,302 30,275 23,722 28,876 21,720 - 8,582 14,424 City of North Bay Village 2,400 2,400 2,400 2,675 2,600 200 8,317 City of North Miami 350,000 460,000 377,939 357,485 340,359 - 9,641 62,225 City of North Miami 14,200 15,600 17,404 22,165 85,593 71,393 44,124 Beach City of Opa-Locka 180,000 112,000 178,912 178,912 178,912 - 1,088 16,479 City of Sunny Isles Beach 154,746 167,740 166,399 148,597 122,158 - 32,588 22,348 City of Sweetwater 72,000 54,000 55,383 65,073 126,487 54,487 21,028 City of West Miami 2,500 2,500 7,786 6,000 12,750 10,250 8,120 Miami Shores Village 21,000 19,033 16,751 17,216 9,879 - 11,121 10,649 Town of Cutler Bay 73,400 20,575 31,128 51,895 52,787 - 20,613 45,101 Town of Medley 1,250 1,095 1,345 1,270 1,078 - 172 891 Town of Miami Lakes 12,172 30,275 21,987 16,233 22,041 9,869 31,087 Town of Surfside 5,000 2,500 26,774 29,518 29,539 24,539 5,841 Village of Bal Harbour 5,432 22,234 16,517 18,971 11,627 6,195 3,059 Village of Palmetto Bay 9,000 5,650 7,271 7,032 5,276 - 3,724 24,710 Village of Pinecrest 23,500 23,362 23,885 27,930 29,875 6,375 19,651 Total 7,392,177 8,306,596 9,184,191 9,894,523 10,854,479 3,462,298
15 Figure 8: Bus and
GOLDEN AVENTURA BEACH Circulator Routes in MIAMI GARDENS SUNNY ISLES Miami Dade County BEACH NORTH MIAMI BEACH Bus and Circulator Routes Non-Municipal Circulators MIAMI LAKES
OPA-LOCKA Aventura NORTH MIAMI BAL BAY HARBOUR HIALEAH HARBOR Bal Harbour GARDENS ISLANDS BISCAYNE HIALEAH PARK SURFSIDE Bay Harbor Islands INDIAN CREEK VILLAGE Coral Gables MIAMI MEDLEY SHORES
Cutler Bay EL PORTAL
Doral NORTH BAY DORAL VILLAGE
Hialeah MIAMI BEACH
Homestead MIAMI SPRINGS
Miami Beach MIAMI VIRGINIA Miami Gardens GARDENS Miami Lakes Miami Shores
Miami SWEETWATER
Miami Springs WEST MIAMI North Bay Village North Miami North Miami Beach Opa-locka Palmetto Bay SOUTH MIAMI Pinecrest KEY South Miami BISCAYNE
CORAL Sunny Isles Beach GABLES Surfside PINECREST Sweetwater West Miami Bus Routes PALMETTO Metrorail BAY
MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA
CUTLER BAY
HOMESTEAD
FLORIDA CITY
LEGEND
Coastal Water ©
0 1 2 3 4
Miles Figure 9: Annual Ridership for Miami-Dade County Municipal Circulators
2.2.2 Potential External Factors Car ownership, income, unemployment, and gas prices are among the external factors that may contribute to transit ridership fluctuations. An example of the impact of these external factors is the transit ridership increase experienced by many agencies during the economic recession in 2007-2011 timeframe.
Car Ownership and Unemployment Car ownership in Miami-Dade County has increased disproportionately relative to population growth in the past few years. The American Community Survey (ACS) estimates indicate that 254,000 personal cars were added to Miami-Dade County between 2013 to 2016, while the overall population only grew by 70,000. These findings are consistent with similar trends in other metropolitan areas. Increasing car ownership and decreasing unemployment, especially among those who are transit-dependent, may lead to reduced transit ridership. Unemployment in Miami-Dade County has steadily decreased in the past five years as shown Figure 10. However, increasing car ownership also leads to congestion, which in turn may lead some populations to shift to transit modes such as Metrorail that offer comparative travel times and eliminate the stress of driving.
17 Figure 10: Historical Unemployment Rate for Miami-Dade County
Fuel Prices Average gas prices in Miami-Dade County for 2013 to 2017 are shown in Figure 11. Gas prices have decreased from a peak in 2014, which could contribute to increased automobile travel and hence a shift from transit to automobile.
Figure 11: Average Annual Gas Prices in Miami, FL (U.S. Energy Information Administration)
18 Shared Mobility Options Emerging transportation options such as Transportation Network Companies (TNCs) and ridesharing companies may have an impact on other travel options, including transit in Miami-Dade County. Two of the widely known TNCs, Uber and Lyft, began service in Miami-Dade County in 2014 and were legally recognized in 2016. The popularity of TNCs can be attributed to ease of booking, payment, quick accessibility, reliability, and convenience. TNCs also offer ridesharing options, which allow passengers to split the cost of a ride with someone else who is taking a similar route.
Dynamic carpooling services allow commuters to pair with other commuting drivers going in the same direction. RideFlag piloted an application with South Florida Commuter Services (SFCS) and Florida International University (FIU). This program now includes University of Miami and continues to expand. DTPW is exploring methods to introduce dynamic carpooling programs to Metrorail stations.
Carsharing entities provide members with short-term access to vehicles. Car2go operated in Miami-Dade from July 2012 to March 2016. In 2017, ZipCar partnered with DTPW to launch a 5-year pilot program where designated parking spaces are allocated at five Metrorail stations (Coconut Grove, Vizcaya, Earlington Heights, Hialeah, and Palmetto) for ZipCar vehicles.
Bikeshare programs provide users on-demand access to bicycles at various docking station locations for one-way or roundtrip travel. For example, CitiBike provides bicycles at docking stations in Miami Beach and downtown Miami as shown in Figure 12. Spin, ofo, and LimeBike are also piloting dock-less bikeshare systems throughout Miami-Dade County. Similar companies, Lime and Bird, are providing dock-less electric scooters in Miami-Dade County, where riders can rent the scooters with a smartphone application, provided they are at least 18 years old and have a valid driver’s license.
In absence of usage information, the impacts of shared mobility options on transit ridership cannot be determined. A review of national literature on the impact of TNCs on transit is presented in a later section of this report.
19 Figure 12: CitiBike Station Map
20 Non-motorized Transportation Modes There has been an increased recognition and promotion of biking and walking as viable and beneficial transportation modes. The Journey to Work data available from US Census Bureau’s American Community Survey indicates an increasing trend of biking to walk among Miami-Dade County residents. As shown in Figure 13 and Figure 14, the increase is noticeable in Miami Beach. Among the notable recent bike infrastructure enhancements include green bike lanes along Venetian Causeway and Crandon Boulevard. The impacts of increased popularity of biking to work on transit use is not known.
Figure 13: Journey to Work – Bike Commuters
Figure 14: Journey to Work – Bike Mode Share
21 2.3 National Literature Review
A national literature research was conducted to compare MDT with other public transit systems, causal factors for ridership change, and strategies developed to mitigate ridership decline. In addition, a review of literature on the impacts of TNCs on transit use is also included in this section.
2.3.1 Comparison of MDT with Other Transit Systems Data from the National Transit Database (NTD) for 2012 to 2016 was used to compare MDT ridership change with major transit systems in Florida and transit systems in other major urbanized areas (UZA). Figure 15 shows annual unlinked trips for transit agencies in Broward County, Orlando, Tampa, Atlanta, Boston, Dallas, Denver, Los Angeles, Houston, Philadelphia, Phoenix, Seattle, and Washington, DC.
Overall, transit ridership in major transit systems in Florida and elsewhere experienced a decline, except for a few agencies. Therefore, transit ridership decline during last few years is a common trend among many transit agencies in the US. Nationally, overall transit ridership (measured using unlinked passenger trips) reduced from 10.352 billion in 2012 to 10.240 billion in 2016 (Source: NTD). A review of select agencies that experienced a ridership increase is included in the next section.
Figure 15: Change in Unlinked Passenger Trips between 2012 and 2016 (Comparison with Other Transit Agencies)
22 2.3.2 Transit Agencies with Increase in Ridership Ridership on King County Metro Transit (Seattle, WA) has been increasing notably, with 120 (million unlinked passenger trips in 2012 to 127 million unlinked passenger trips in 2016 (Source: NTD). These gains are a result of continued investments in the system by King County and the City of Seattle. Future plans include a $30 million annual investment to address overcrowding and reliability, expansion of the light rail system, and improving connections to the existing RapidRide bus system.
King County Metro - Seattle, WA (The Seattle Times, 2017)
Houston has also seen an increase in transit use from 81 million unlinked passenger trips in 2012 and 90 million unlinked passenger trips in 2016 (Source: NTD). This increase in ridership may be attributed to the expansion of light rail and restructuring of the bus network. In 2015, Houston restructured the bus network to a grid-like system, increased access to bus service by providing frequencies of at least every 15 minutes, and expanded service on weekends and evenings. From May 2015 to May 2016, monthly bus ridership increased by 7% and light rail ridership increased by 28%.
In 2004, voters of the Regional Transportation District (RTD) in Metro Denver region approved a rapid transit expansion program with a $5.3 billion investment. The Metro Denver region has seen an increase in transit use from 99 million unlinked passenger trips in 2012 to 103 million unlinked passenger trips in 2016 (Source: NTD). A report that assessed transit ridership between 2010 and 2015 indicates a 5% increase in annual boardings, with light rail experiencing a 30% increase, whereas bus ridership has been steady. However, transit mode share remained consistent and per capita boardings decreased by 4%.
Transit use in Minneapolis’ Metropolitan Council has increased from 81 million in 2012 to 83 million in 2016 (Source: NTD). Furthermore, ridership on the Green and Blue light rail lines experienced a 4% growth in 2017. The agency has two light rail extensions in the Capital Investment Grants (CIG) Program engineering phase, and it is planning for 17 new rapid bus routes, 46 new local bus lines, and upgrades to 76 existing bus routes to accommodate future ridership. Additionally, ridership on Minneapolis’ arterial Bus Rapid Transit A-Line increased 30% from 2016 to 2018 after a $27 million investment. Peak service operates at 10-minute headways, buses have transit signal priority, stations are well-equipped with shelters, real-time information, and bike racks. In 2016, Metro Transit introduced an application with
23 mobile payment options and a trip planner. Sixteen percent (16%) of fares are purchased online and about 75% of visits to their website occur on a mobile device.
Metropolitan Council - Minneapolis, MN (MinnPost, 2015)
In November 2017, the Toronto Transit Commission (Toronto, ON, Canada) implemented dedicated right-of-way and transit priority measures for the King Street streetcar line. There has been an 11% increase in all-day weekday ridership along the corridor as of June 2018. The largest change is during weekday ridership, which increased by 35% in the morning, and 27% in the evening. The improvements also include implementing a growth strategy program that establish a partnership with microtransit companies, increasing bus and streetcar signal priority, and the installation of Wi-Fi services at key locations. A summary of strategies that led to an increase in transit ridership is provided below.
· Large scale investments that include transit network expansions and operational improvements to the existing system · Investment in passenger rail systems · Restructuring of bus systems in response to the changing land use patterns and growth trends · Obtaining public support and input for the investments
2.3.3 Internal and External Factors Affecting Transit Ridership The determinants of transit ridership can be categorized as either internal (operational) or external factors, where factors such as fuel prices, land use, socioeconomic factors, metropolitan population, and economic vitality are among the external factors that influence ridership. Factors such as transit service levels, transit service quality, fare prices, and quality of service are among the operational factors that influence ridership.
A 2015 study conducted by the Mineta Transportation Institute, Investigating the Determining Factors for Transit Travel Demand by Bus Mode in US Metropolitan Statistical Areas, sought to examine the influence of operational and external factors on transit ridership by bus using 2010 data. A total of 19 variables were
24 analyzed (8 internal and 11 external). The results indicated that seven out of eight operational variables proved to be significant factors in determining travel demand by bus. These include transit fare, transit supply, revenue hours, average headway, safety, transit coverage, and service intensity. Contrastingly, only gas price proved to be a significant external predictor of transit demand by bus.
A 2018 study by McGill University, Invest in the Ride: A 14 Year Longitudinal Analysis of the Determinants of Public Transport Ridership in 25 North American Cities, sought to explore the determinants of transit ridership. The findings suggest that operational factors, rather than TNCs and gas price, are key determinants of ridership. As shown in Table 11, revenue miles and average fare were among the operational factors shown to have a significant effect on transit ridership (i.e., statistically significant). The presence of private bus operators, the proportion of carless households, gas prices, and population were among the external factors to have a significant influence on transit ridership.
Table 11: The Effects of Operational and External Factors on Transit Ridership
Factor Statistically Factor Effect Type Significant Revenue Positive association. More service results in increased Operational Yes miles ridership Negative association. Increases in fare result in Average fare Operational Yes decreased ridership Positive association. The presence of a privately- operated bus service results in increased ridership for Private Bus External Yes transit agencies, suggesting that those services are Operators complementary to the service directly operated by agency Presence of Some positive association. TNCs provide a complement External No TNCs to public transit services. Presence of bicycle Some positive association. Ride sharing services provide External No sharing a complement to public transit services. systems Positive association. Car ownership can be used as an Proportion of indicator of economic vitality. A greater number of zero-car External Yes household without a car is associated with more transit households trips. Small positive association. Higher gas prices may result Gas price External Yes in increased transit ridership Positive association. In the study, a 10% increase in Population External Yes population was associated with a 3.39% increase in ridership
25 A 2018 University of South Florida study to understand demographic factors that influence transit ridership concluded:
· As the population’s age distribution changes, propensity to use transit also changes. The study cites the National Household Travel Survey in 2017, where transit use trip share is highest among the 16 – 35 age group, remains steady among the 35-65 age group, and declines among the 65+ age group. The study recommends the need to understand older individuals’ differing travel needs and preferences. · As auto availability changes, propensity to use transit also changes. Therefore, increase the attractiveness of transit to “choice riders,” as “captive” transit ridership is showing a decreasing trend.
A study conducted by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) in 2018, Falling Transit Ridership: California and Southern California, attributes transit ridership decreases in Southern California during the past decade to a combination of falling gas prices, new mobility options by transportation network companies (TNC) services, fare increases in Orange County, concerns about safety, and upward socioeconomic mobility of previously transit-dependent populations. The authors of this study conclude that rising vehicle ownership is the strongest explanation for falling transit ridership. Between 2000 and 2015, Southern Californians acquired vehicles at almost four times the rate they had between 1990 and 2000. The same study suggests that rising personal vehicle ownership is heavily contributing to falling transit ridership in urban areas. Outcomes of several studies recommend that transit agencies should not focus on reversing the trends of vehicle ownership increases by lower-income people, as it is evident that vehicle ownership has beneficial impacts for families. Instead, transit agencies should focus on building a broad base of transit users. The authors estimate that 77% of the 18.8 million residents in the Southern California region rarely or never use transit. If one quarter of non-transit users would replace a single driving trip twice a month, annual ridership would grow by 96 million – more than enough to compensate for recent losses.
2.3.4 Transportation Network Companies (TNCs) A study was conducted by the Institute of Transportation Studies at University of California, Davis, in 2017, Disruptive Transportation: The Adoption, Utilization, and Impacts of Ride-Hailing in the United States, to evaluate the impact of TNCs on travel behavior, including vehicle ownership, trip generation, mode substitution, and vehicle miles traveled. The findings of this study indicate that there is uneven adoption of ride-hailing across income classes and age groups. Moreover, use of TNC services is less common by those who live in suburban areas. Contrary to previous studies that suggest that use of TNC services results in a complementary relationship to public transit, the findings of this study show mixed results – the data show a 6% reduction in the use of bus services and a 3% reduction in the use of heavy rail. Furthermore, the authors provided recommendations for improving ridership and state that cities and transit agencies need to be more proactive in collecting data from transit and TNC users such as vehicle ownership, vehicle miles traveled, and mode shares. This could be achieved by mandating data-sharing for TNCs and other mobility operators that use public roads and investing. Additionally, investment in more frequent data
26 collection efforts should be made. Absent of data, cities and transit agencies will not be able to make data- informed decisions.
A 2016 study in New York City, For-Hire Vehicle Transportation Study, indicates that TNCs were contributing to slower traffic flow within the urban core. This study recommends implementing a per-trip fee on taxi and TNC trips as a potential congestion pricing solution in urban environments. Implementing a per-trip fee would raise substantial revenue while only modestly reducing taxi and TNC vehicle mileage in Manhattan. Preliminary findings estimate that a $3 per-trip fee could reduce taxi/TNC mileage by 3-4% while at the same time generating $475 million per year in added revenue. Another approach would be to improve efficiency by reducing the unoccupied time that taxis and TNCs spend between dropping off passengers at the end of one trip and picking up passengers for their next trip.
An investigation of TNC users in the Boston Metropolitan area was conducted in 2017 by the Metropolitan Area Planning Council where almost 1,000 TNC users were asked about their demographics, nature of the trip, and why they chose to use TNC services over other modes of transportation. The results of the survey indicate that over 80% or the surveyed respondents were under the age of 35. Additionally, users surveyed listed speed of service as the primary reason for having selected TNC services as a mode of travel. The authors of the study state that transit and public agencies need more information from TNCs. It is recommended that state legislatures and public agencies should seek opportunities to mandate the provision of additional data from TNCs to ensure that more informed planning, operational, and policy decisions can be made.
27 3.0 Transit Survey Results
To complement our study, a web-based survey was conducted in June 2018 to obtain input from the residents of Miami-Dade County on the factors affecting transit use. Input was sought from both transit users and non-transit users by providing two separate sets of questions. Questionnaires were made available in English, Spanish, and Creole. The survey announcements were primarily carried out through e-blasts, agency websites, digital ads, and social media. These outreach efforts were supplemented by limited in-person surveys at major transit stations. The survey questionnaires, advertisement methods, and in-person survey locations are summarized in Appendix C. It’s important to note that this was not a scientific survey. The survey provided informal feedback on service from individuals that may or may not use transit today, and is not necessarily representative of the general cross section of the population.
Overall, 1,755 completed surveys were received. As shown is Table 12, 719 responses were from frequent transit users (use transit at least once a week), 445 responses were from infrequent transit users (use transit less than once a week), and 591 responses were from non-transit users. The transit users (frequent and infrequent) were directed to ten follow-up questions and non-transit users were directed to nine separate follow-up questions. The questions were multiple choice responses, and most of the questions required only one response. Questions that asked age, household income, and resident zip code were labeled as optional. In addition, the respondents were given the opportunity to provide write-in comments in a separate section.
Table 12: Transit Use Frequency of Survey Responders
Transit Use Frequency Responses Percentage
I use transit frequently (at least once a week) 719 41%
I use transit infrequently (less than once a week) 445 25%
I do not use transit 591 34%
Total 1,755 100%
3.1 Survey Results – Transit Users
A summary of transit users’ (frequent and infrequent) survey responses to each question is provided in Appendix D. Notable findings from transit user survey responses are provided below.
Transit use trends:
The number of respondents who claimed their transit use increased was higher than those who claimed their transit use deceased. This result is not consistent with the recent county-wide transit use trends. Possible reasons for this anomaly include:
· Surveys did not specifically target people whose transit use declined and/or no longer use transit.
28 · In-person surveys appear to have resulted in a (disproportionately) high responses from Metrorail users because most in-person surveys were conducted at Metrorail stations. · In-person surveys were conducted by the facilitator reading the questions to the responder, and then the facilitator entered responses to the online survey platform. The presence of a facilitator might have influenced the response given to this question, especially those who reported an increase in transit use.
Table 13: Transit Use Trends in the Last 12 Months
Transit Use Trends Responses Percentage Decreased 252 22% Increased 350 30% Remained the same 559 48% Total 1,161 100%
Why transit use decreased?
This question was directed to those who said their transit use decreased during the last 12 months.
· Half of the respondents attributed their transit use has decline to transit service cuts, poor reliability, and/or safety concerns. As noted in Table 7 in Section 2.2, on-time performance of Metrobus and Metrorail modes were below the targets established in the DTPW’s Transit Development Plan (TDP). · The second most cited reason is driving a personal vehicle, which may be due to either internal (i.e., reduction in transit service or concerns with service reliability) or external (i.e., having access to a personal car due to increased income) factors. Between 2013 and 2016, automobile registration (254,000) in Miami-Dade County outpaced population growth (70,000) by a factor of 3.6, thus indicating increased access to a personal vehicle. · Increased use of Uber, Lyft and taxi services was cited by 16 percent of the respondents as a reason for declined transit use.
Table 14: Primary Reason for Transit Use Decline
Response Choices Percentage Reduction in transit service, reliability and/or safety concerns 50% Drive a personal vehicle and/or carpool/vanpool 22% I use Uber, Lyft or taxi 16% Change in residential or employment location 4% I am biking/walking 2% Other 6% Total 100%
29 Is there a correlation between age and transit use decrease?
Table 15 provides a breakdown of transit users by age groups. The results indicate that the 25-34 age group is most overrepresented for transit use decreased, followed by the 35-44 age group. In contrast, more respondents belonging to the 45+ age groups indicated that their transit use either increased or remained the same rather than decreased.
Table 15: Transit Use Decline vs. Age of Respondents
All Transit Transit Use Percent Age Group Users Decreased Difference 16-24 years 5% 5% 0%
25-34 years 25% 34% +9% 35-44 years 17% 19% +2%
45-54 years 20% 16% -4%
55-64 years 21% 16% -5%
Over 65 years 12% 10% -2%
Total 100% 100% -
Is there a correlation between age and transit use decrease due to Uber, Lyft or taxi use?
Table 16 provides a breakdown of transit users by age groups for those who claimed their transit use declined due to the use of Uber, Lyft, or taxi services. The results indicate that the 25-34 age group is most overrepresented, followed by the 35-44 age group. In contrast, the 45+ age groups are underrepresented, indicating that Uber, Lyft, or taxi services had less of an impact on their decreased transit use.
Table 16: Transit Use Decline Attributed to Uber, Lyft, or Taxi Use by Age Groups
Transit Use Decreased Percent Transit Use Age Group Due to Uber, Lyft, or Difference Decreased Taxi Use 16-24 years 5% 5% 0%
25-34 years 34% 43% +9%
35-44 years 19% 25% +6% 45-54 years 16% 13% -3%
55-64 years 16% 10% -6%
Over 65 years 10% 5% -5%
Total 100% 100% -
30 Is there a correlation between transit use decrease and household income?
Table 17 provides household income of transit users. In general, transit use decline is most notable among households with income less than $50,000, whereas transit use increased or remained constant among households with income more than $100,000. The decline among the lower income categories might be correlated with ridership decline for Metrobus, which has the widest coverage among transit modes in Miami-Dade County. The increase in transit use (or remained constant) among high income households might be correlated with a high response rate from Metrorail users, especially from the communities in Pinecrest, Cutler Bay, West Kendall areas. Maps created to depict zip codes of the survey participants are discussed in a later section.
Table 17: Household Income of Transit Users
Annual Household All Transit Transit Use Percent Income Users Decreased Difference Less than $25,000 8% 10% +2%
$25,000 and $49,999 20% 25% +5%
$50,000 and $74,999 20% 20% 0%
$75,000 and $100,000 18% 20% +2%
More than $100,000 34% 25% -9%
Total 100% 100% -
Do you have access to an automobile?
As summarized in Table 18, 83 percent of transit users indicated as having access to an automobile for use. In comparison, 98 percent of non-transit users have access to an automobile. Only 17 percent of transit users who participated in the survey identified as “captive riders.” Therefore, “choice riders” are a significant proportion of transit users in Miami-Dade County. As such, the likelihood of transit ridership fluctuations can be greater among the “choice riders.”
Table 18: Access to an Automobile
Access to an automobile Yes No Total
Transit users 83% 17% 100%
Non-transit users 98% 2% 100%
31 Table 19 further breaks down access to automobile based on the frequency of transit use. These results are consistent with the general understanding that high automobile ownership is an indicator of less propensity to use transit.
Table 19: Frequency of Transit Use and Access to an Automobile
Access to an automobile Yes No Total
Frequent transit users 77% 23% 100% Infrequent transit users 93% 7% 100%
What’s the primary transportation mode of transit users?
As summarized in Table 20, 45 percent of transit users identified transit (including municipal circulators) as their primary travel mode. Another notable observation is that 42 percent of transit users listed private vehicles as their primary mode of transit, which may be due to the high automobile access as evident from the previously presented survey results. Based on the zip codes provided by transit users, the majority who reported municipal trolley/circulator as their primary mode of transportation reside in Downtown Miami and Miami Beach, which provide robust municipal transit services.
Table 20: Primary Travel Mode of Transit Users
Response Choices Percentage
Transit: Metrobus, Metrorail, Metromover, Tri-Rail, or paratransit 45%
Drive a personal vehicle and/or carpool/vanpool 42%
Bike or walk 6%
Uber, Lyft, taxi, or carshare (Zipcar, other) 4%
Transit: municipal circulator/trolley 3%
Total 100%
Comments from transit users
The write-in comments were diverse and covered a broad spectrum of issues. Table 21 summarizes commonly expressed issues. The comments about poor service reliability and the need to improve transit stations/stops were the most common. There is a desire to see an overall improvement of transit services and customer experience. Table 22 lists different modes that were the focus of comments, where available. Metrorail was the most frequently cited mode, followed by Metrobus and Metromover. As previously noted, in-person surveys done at Metrorail stations may have resulted in a disproportionately high number of responses from Metrorail users.
32 Table 21: Transit Users’ Comments
Comment/Issue Count Percentage
Poor Service Reliability 279 25% Transit Stops/Stations 207 18% Improve Overall Service 109 10% Poor Visual Appearance 104 9% Add More Railcars/Buses 101 9% Improve Quality of Stations/Transit Modes 93 8% Improve Security/Safety 49 4% Add Express Routes 47 4% Improve Service Times 31 3% Complaints on Drivers 19 2% Improvements to Elderly/ADA Accommodations 17 2% Improve Payment System 13 1% Other 56 5% Total 1,125 100%
Table 22: Transit Users’ Comments by Mode
Mode Count Percentage Metrorail 256 23% Metrobus 88 8% Metrorail & Metrobus 52 5% Metromover 25 2% Metrorail & Metromover 16 1% Metrobus & Metromover 5 <1% General Comments or Mode Not Specified 683 61% Total 1,125 100%
33 Comments from whose transit use increased
Out of the respondents who said their transit use has increased, 37 percent attributed the increase to change in residential or employment location (note the discussion in literature review about external factors that impact transit use). Thirty five percent of the respondents said that transit is more convenient or costs less, which may indicate that some people are using transit because of worsening congestion that makes driving a car unappealing.
Table 23: Reasons for Transit Use Increase
Response Choices Percentage Change in residential or employment location 37% Using transit is healthier and helps to reduce congestion/ 22% environmental pollution Transit is more convenient 21% Transit costs less 14% Availability of express bus service 6% Total 100%
What should be done to encourage more use of transit?
This question was included in both transit user and non-transit user questionnaires with response choices customized to each group. The respondents were allowed to select more than one response choice. While transit users identified more frequent and on-time service as the priority needs, non-transit users viewed more connecting options to and from transit facilities (i.e., first-mile and last-mile options) and express bus routes/passenger rail as important measures to encourage transit use. The input provided by non- transit users can be viewed as indications of latent demand for transit if appropriate improvements are made.
Table 24: Measures to Encourage Transit Use
Transit Non-Transit Response Choices Users Users More frequent and on-time transit service 76% 44% More express bus routes and/or new 53% 49% passenger rail services More connecting options to and from transit 46% 50% facilities Safer and cleaner transit stations/stops and 44% vehicles 36% More convenient and comfortable transit 41% service Unlikely to use transit no matter what N/A 18% improvements are made
34 3.2 Survey Results - Non-Transit Users
A summary of non-transit users’ survey responses to each question is provided in Appendix E. Notable findings from non-transit user survey responses are provided below.
What is the reason for not using transit?
Lack of transit coverage and distance to bus stops were the most cited reasons for not using transit. Infrequent service and/or operational hours not suiting the needs is the second most cited reason. Poor service reliability, which was the number one concern among transit users, is the third most cited concern by non-transit users. This is understandable given that non-transit users may not be as knowledgeable about day-to-day transit service issues as transit users.
Table 25: Primary Reason for Not Using Transit
Response Choices Percentage
Does not serve my destinations and/or bus stops are too far to access 40%
Service is not frequent and/or operational hours do not fit my schedule 21%
Service is not reliable 18%
I am concerned about safety 11%
Transit vehicles and stops are not clean/well maintained 10%
Total 100%
Will you use transit if shuttle services were provided to and from transit stops?
The purpose of this question is to gauge the role of improved first-mile, last-mile options could play in increasing transit use. As shown in Table 26, 73 percent of non-transit users responded favorably to the question. Therefore, enhanced first-mile, last-mile options could lead to transit use by those currently not using transit.
Table 26: First-Mile, Last-Mile Options to Attract Non-Transit Users
Response Choices Percentage
Yes 73%
No 27%
Total 100%
35 Comments from non-transit users
The issues identified by non-transit users in write-in comments were broadly categorized into common themes listed in Table 27. The need for enhanced transit accessibility, improvement of overall transit services and customer experience, and more express bus routes are the leading comments. As seen from Table 28, most non-transit users did not specify a transit mode. However, like the transit users survey, Metrorail was mentioned more frequently than other modes.
Table 27: Non-Transit Users’ Comments
Comment/Issue Count Percentage
More Transit Stops/Stations 95 39% Improve Overall Service 68 28% Add Express Routes 27 11% Improve Service Reliability 16 7% Add More Railcars/Buses 15 6% Improve Security/Safety 8 3% Improvements to Elderly/ADA Accommodations 5 2% Other 8 3% Total 242 100%
Table 28: Non-Transit Users’ Comments by Mode
Mode Total Percentage General Comments or Mode Not Specified 170 70% Metrorail 35 14% Metrobus 21 9% Metrorail & Metrobus 8 3% Metromover 7 3% Metrorail & Metromover 1 < 1% Total 242 100%
36 3.3 Survey Results - Maps
The survey questionnaire included an option to provide the respondent’s resident zip code. Table 29 provides a summary of number of respondents who provided zip codes. The zip codes were used to map responses to select questions using a Geographic Information Systems(GIS) and these as shown in Figure 16.
Table 29: Zip Codes of Survey Respondents
Zip Code Provided Zip Code Not Provided Total
Transit users 1,012 (87%) 152 (13%) 1,164 (100%)
Non-transit users 481 (81%) 110 (19%) 591 (100%)
Geographic distribution of survey respondents (see Figure 17 and Figure 18)
· In general, transit users who responded to the survey are concentrated in Central Miami-Dade County, along the Metrorail corridor between Dadeland South and Downtown Miami, Miami Beach, and along the Northeast Corridor. The in-person surveys at Metrorail stations appear to have influenced survey participation in Central Miami-Dade County. · The non-transit user map also shows participation from areas listed above, as well as from Northwest Miami-Dade County. · In general, survey participation was low from south and northcentral parts of the county.
Zero car households – transit users (see Figure 19)
· Most of the transit user survey participants who do not have access to a car are from Miami, Miami Beach, or North Miami-Dade County. In comparison to the map depicting geographic distribution of all transit users, zero car households are noticeably underrepresented in Central Miami-Dade County. The zero car households map may indicate areas with transit dependent populations.
Transit use increased/decreased (see Figure 20 and Figure 21)
· There were no discernable geographic correlations between resident location and transit use increase or decrease. In general, the same zip codes appear in both maps due to high survey participation from certain areas, as described above.
37 Primary travel mode = county’s transit services (see Figure 22)
· As noted in Table 19, 45 percent of transit users indicated that their primary mode of travel is County’s transit services. The map indicates Central Miami-Dade County as having a concentration of respondents whose primary travel mode is transit.
Primary travel mode = municipal transit service (see Figure 23)
· Only 26 transit users said municipal transit services was their primary travel mode. Most of them live in Miami or Miami Beach where circulator services experienced significant ridership increase, as evident from Table 9.
38 Figure 16: Map of Zip Codes Reported by Respondents in Miami-Dade County Survey Respondents’ zip Codes
Figure 17: Geographic Distribution of Survey Respondents. Transit Users Survey Respondents’ zip Codes
Figure 18: Geographic Distribution of Survey Respondents. Non-Transit Users Figure 19: Zero Car Households – Transit Users Legend
High
Low
Transit Use Increased 303 respondents
Figure 20: Transit Use Increased Legend
High
Low
Transit Use Decreased 213 respondents
Figure 21: Transit Use Decreased Legend
High
Low
Primary mode = County’s Transit Services 449 responses
Figure 22: Responded County Transit Services as Primary Mode of Travel for Transit Users Legend
High
Low
Primary mode = Municipal Transit Services 26 responses
Figure 23: Responded Municipal Transit Services as Primary Mode of Travel for Transit Users 4.0 Conclusions and Recommendations
This study evaluated possible reasons for the recent transit ridership decline in Miami-Dade County through a literature review and an online survey. The results are summarized below. 4.1 Conclusions - Transit Ridership Data Analysis and Survey Results
This section summarizes key results from the analysis of Miami-Dade County transit ridership data (Sections 2.1 and 2.2) and survey (Section 3). Please note that the survey was not a scientific survey. The survey provided informal feedback on service from individuals that may or may not use transit today, and is not necessarily representative of the general cross section of the population.
· While ridership decline is evident in all three major transit modes operated by DTPW (Metrobus, Metrorail, and Metromover), Metrobus is the mode that has experienced the most decline. Metrobus ridership was down by 29% from March 2014 to March 2018; however, Metrobus ridership decline accounted for 89% of the total ridership decline across the three modes. · As a result of the Metrobus ridership decline, which began towards the tail end of 2014, the DTPW subsequently scaled its service according to the lower demand. · Local transit circulators in Miami-Dade County experienced an increase in ridership. However, this increase is largely due to significant ridership increases in Miami and Miami Beach. · Transit ridership decline in Miami-Dade County is comparable to other major transit services in Florida and nationwide. · Factors contributing to ridership decline in Miami-Dade County are both internal and external to the transit system. o Based on the 311 complaints, on-time performance statistics from the TDP, and survey input, service reliability issues appears to be the most prominent internal factor. The most recent on-time performance data of Metrobus and Metrorail are below the targets established in the TDP. o Increasing automobile ownership/income appears to be a primary external factor that contributed to modal shift from transit to automobile. Between 2013 and 2016, automobile registration (254,000) in Miami-Dade County outpaced population growth (70,000) by a factor of 3.6, thus indicating increased access to a personal vehicle. o Transportation Network Companies (TNCs) appear to have some impact on transit ridership decline, especially among the 24-35 age group. · Ridership decline among households with an annual income less than $50,000 was noted. Possible reasons for modal shift among this income group include new automobile owners, especially among young people entering the workforce, and Metrobus being the primary transit mode available in areas with low/moderate income populations. · Transit users’ main suggestion to increase transit ridership is to offer more frequent and reliable transit services. Non-transit users suggested improving first-mile, last-mile options and providing new express bus and/or passenger rail services to attract non-transit users. Based on the significant non-transit user participation in the survey, it’s apparent that there is latent demand for transit.
47 · Some ridership increase was evident among households with annual income above $100,000. A possible reason is increasing congestion leading some people to use transit, especially Metrorail because of comparative travel times and the desire to relieve stress from driving. It should also be noted that survey participation was high in areas such as Miami, Pinecrest, and West Kendall due to in-person surveys at Metrorail stations. · The majority of transit users who responded to the survey were “choice riders.” The likelihood of transit ridership fluctuations among “choice riders” can be greater due to the access to a private vehicle. · The survey indicates that transit use decrease is most noticeable among the 25-34 age group, followed by the 35-44 age group. In contrast, more respondents belonging to the 45+ age groups indicated that their transit use either increased or remained the same rather than decreased. · It should be noted that the survey was not a scientific one. Further, in-person surveys appear to have resulted in a (disproportionately) high responses from Metrorail users because most in- person surveys were conducted at Metrorail stations.
4.2 Conclusions – National Literature Research
This section summarizes key results from the national literature research (Section 2.3).
· Common factors among some transit operators that have experienced ridership increase include continued investments in transit systems, addressing overcrowding and reliability issues, proactive redesigning of the bus route network to respond to changing land use patterns and growth trends, expansion of passenger rail and rapid bus systems, and obtaining public support for transit investments. · Studies have been done to identify correlations between transit ridership and external and internal factors. Among internal (operational) factors found to be influential were transit fare, transit supply, revenue hours, headway, safety, transit coverage and service intensity. Gas prices, personal vehicle ownership, zero car households, and population were noted as significant external predictors of transit demand. · Overall, the findings on Transportation Network Companies (TNCs) impact on transit are mixed. Some studies suggest that use of TNC services results in a complementary relationship to public transit, whereas others indicate some adverse impacts on transit services. There is uneven adoption of ride-hailing across income classes and age groups. Moreover, use of TNC services is less common by those who live in suburban areas. The studies cite lack of data on TNCs as a challenge for determining the impact on transit and other modes. One recommended action is to enact legislations mandating the provision of data from TNCs to facilitate more informed planning, operational, and policy decisions.
48 4.3 Recommendations
This section summarizes recommendations based on transit data analysis and resurvey responses.
· From March 2014 to March 2018, Metrobus ridership decline accounted for 89% of total Miami- Dade County transit ridership decline across the three primary modes. Therefore, strategies to address Metrobus ridership decline should be considered. Addressing issues associated with service reliability should be a primary focus. · Most transit users who responded to the survey can be categorized as “choice riders.” The likelihood of transit ridership fluctuations among “choice riders” can be greater due to the access to a private vehicle. Therefore, strategies to attract and maintain choice riders such as park-and- ride facilities at major transit stations, first-mile, last-mile options, passenger rail services, and convenience and comfort of transit services should be evaluated. · The survey indicated a decline in transit use among households with an annual income less than $50,000. Therefore, strategies to improve transit use in areas with low/moderate income populations such as service coverage and frequency improvements, grid routes, good transfer connections, and safety and security at transit stops should be evaluated. · Based on the significant non-transit user participation in the survey, it’s apparent that there is latent demand for transit. The main suggestions of non-transit users to improve transit use were improving first-mile, last-mile options and providing new express bus and/or passenger rail services. These suggestions should be considered in the assessment of existing transit system and future projects.
49