How to Increase Rail Ridership in Maryland: Direct Ridership Models for Policy Guidance
Publication: Journal of Urban Planning and Development
Volume 142, Issue 4
Abstract
The State of Maryland aims to double its transit ridership by the end of 2020. The Maryland Statewide Transportation Model (MSTM) has been used to analyze different policy options at a system-wide level. Direct ridership models (DRMs) estimate ridership as a function of station environment and transit service features rather than using mode-choice results from large-scale traditional models. They have been particularly favored for estimating the benefits of smart growth policies such as transit-oriented development (TOD) on transit ridership and can be used as complements to the traditional four-step models for analyzing smart-growth scenarios at a local level. They can also provide valuable information that a system-level analysis cannot provide. For example, DRMs can provide ridership estimate when densifying either households or employment at certain stations to test the effectiveness of TOD strategies at target stations. In this study, the authors developed DRMs of rail transit stations, namely light rail, commuter rail, Baltimore metro, and Washington DC Metro for the State of Maryland. Data for 112 rail stations were gathered from a variety of sources and categorized by transit service characteristics, station built-environment features, and social-demographic variables. The results suggest that impacts of the built environment differ for light rail and commuter rail. For light rail stations, employment at 0.8 km (half-mile) station areas, service level, feeder bus connectivity, station location in the Central Business District (CBD), distance to the nearest station, and terminal stations are significant factors influencing ridership. For commuter rail stations, only feeder bus connections are found to be significant. The DRM results have implications for agencies aiming to increase transit ridership through leveraging the land use near transit-station areas. The results show that stations with higher employment were observed to have higher transit boardings. Thus, agencies desiring to increase transit ridership should consider zoning regulations and site-design requirements that allow denser development around transit stations. However, increasing densities must be in conjunction with improved transit service levels, parking, and feeder bus services to take full advantage of rail transit. Some of the limitations of the current study and future research directions Include, first, that the DRMs were developed for the State of Maryland only. Future research should be carried out for surrounding regions to get generalized conclusions. Second, other important factors should be incorporated in the model, such as safety and transit reliability attributes. Third, more-detailed parking information, such as parking costs and supply, should be included in the model.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
Acknowledgments
The authors are thankful to Maryland Department of Transportation (MDOT) for the continued support in the development of models used in this study. The opinions and viewpoints expressed are entirely those of the authors, and do not necessarily represent policies and programs of any agency. The authors would like to thank the two anonymous reviewers for their very constructive and insightful comments. The authors would also like to thank Daniel Engelberg for his proofreading of the manuscript.
References
Adams, M. A., et al. (2009). “Validation of the neighborhood environment walkability scale (NEWS) items using geographic information systems.” J. Phys. Act. Health, 6(1), S113.
Antipova, A., Wang, F., and Wilmot, C. (2011). “Urban land uses, socio-demographic attributes and commuting: a multilevel modeling approach.” Appl. Geogr., 31(3), 1010–1018.
Blash, L., Duncan, M., Hranac, R., and Khazai, B. (2015). “AC transit telegraph MIS project: Integrating GIS and travel model evaluation methodologies.” 〈〉 (Nov. 10, 2005).
Cervero, R. (2006). “Alternative approaches to modeling the travel-demand impacts of smart growth.” J. Am. Plann. Assoc., 72(3), 285–295.
Cervero, R. (2007). “Transit-oriented development’s ridership bonus: A product of self-selection and public policies.” Environ. Plann. A, 39(9), 2068–2085.
Cervero, R., and Murakami, J. (2009). “Rail and property development in Hong Kong: Experiences and extensions.” Urban Stud., 46(10), 2019–2043.
Chu, X. H. (2004). “Ridership models at the stop level.”, Center for Urban Transportation Research, Univ. of South Florida.
CMRT (Central Maryland Transportation Alliance). (2009). “Central Maryland TOD strategy: A regional action plan for transit-centered communities.” 〈http://ctod.org/pdfs/2009CentralMarylandTODStrategy.pdf〉 (Mar. 11, 2013).
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral science, 2nd Ed., Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.
Duduta, N. (2013). “Direct ridership model of Mexico City’s BRT and metro systems.” Transportation Research Board 92nd Annual Meeting, Washington, DC.
Fehr & Peers. (2013). “DRM (Direct Ridership Models).” 〈http://www.fehrandpeers.com/drm-direct-ridership-models/〉 (Jul. 17, 2013).
Filion, P. (2001). “Suburban mixed-use centres and urban dispersion: What difference do they make?” Environ. Plann. A, 33(1), 141–160.
Frank, L., Martin, M., and Schmid, T. (2004). “Obesity relationships with community design, physical activity, and time spent in cars.” Am. J. Preventive Med., 27(2), 87–96.
Geurs, K. T., and Wee, B. V. (2004). “Accessibility evaluation of land-use and transport strategies: Review and research directions.” J. Transp. Geogr., 12(2), 127–140.
Gutiérrez, J., Cardozo, O. D., and García-Palomares, J. C. (2011). “Transit ridership forecasting at station level: an approach based on distance-decay weighted regression.” J. Transp. Geogr., 19(6), 1081–1092.
Hadas, Y., and Ranjitkar, P. (2012). “Modeling public-transit connectivity with spatial quality-of-transfer measurements.” J. Transp. Geogr., 22, 137–147.
Kaplana, S., Popoksa, D., Pratoa, C. G., and Ceder, A. (2014). “Using connectivity for measuring equity in transit provision.” J. Transp. Geogr., 37, 82–92.
Kuby, M., Barranda, A., and Upchurch, C. (2004). “Factors influencing light-rail station boardings in the United States.” Transp. Res. Part A: Policy Pract., 38(3), 223–247.
LEHD (Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics). (2008). 〈http://lehd.ces.census.gov/〉 (Mar. 10, 2013).
LEHD (Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics). (2013). 〈http://lehd.ces.census.gov/〉.
Li, J., Yang, G., Co, J., and Li, L. (2015). “Forecasting method for urban rail transit ridership at the station-level using a weighted population variable and genetic algorithm back propagation neural network.” 5th Int. Conf. on Transportation Engineering.
LS Transit Systems. (1998). “Around the Bay rail study.” 〈〉.
Marshall, N., and Grady, B. (2006). “Sketch transit modeling based on 2000 census data.” Transp. Res. Rec., 1986(1), 182–189.
Maxwell, S. E., and Kelley, K. (2008). “Sample size planning for statistical power and accuracy in parameter estimation.” Annu. Rev. Psychol., 59, 537–563.
MDOT (Maryland Department of Transportation). (2009). “2009 Maryland transportation plan.” 〈〉.
MDP (Maryland Department of Planning). (2010). “Property view data.” 〈〉.
MDP (Maryland Department of Planning). (2013). “Smart growth planning topics.” 〈http://www.mdp.state.md.us/OurWork/smartGrowth.shtml〉 (Jul. 30, 2013).
Mishra, S., Welch, T., Torrens, P., Fu, C., Zhu, H., and Knaap, E. (2015). “A tool for measuring and visualizing connectivity of transit stop, route and transfer center in a multimodal transportation network, public transport.” Public Transp., 7(1), 77–99.
Mishra, S., Welch, T. F., and Jha, M. K. (2012). “Performance indicators for public transit connectivity in multi-modal transportation networks.” Transp. Res. Part A: Policy Pract., 46(7), 1066–1085.
Mitra, R., and Buliung, R. N. (2012). “Built environment correlates of active school transportation: neighborhood and the modifiable areal unit problem.” J. Transp. Geogr., 20(1), 51–61.
MTA (Maryland Transit Administration). (2011). “Transit ridership.”.
NCSG (National Center for Smart Growth). (2010). “Research and education. Data inventory.” (May 20, 2013).
NCSG (National Center for Smart Growth). (2012a). “Maryland scenarios project draft final year 3 report.”.
NCSG (National Center for Smart Growth). (2012b). “Maryland state-wide travel demand model.” 〈http://smartgrowth.umd.edu/statetransportationmodel〉 (Mar. 20, 2013).
Pulugurtha, S. S., Nambisan, S. S. and Maheshwari, P. (2006). “Estimating pedestrian counts in urban areas for transportation planning and safety analyses.” Applications of Advanced Technology in Transportation, 9th Int. Conf.
R.L. Banks & Associates. (2001). “Kansas City region commuter rail study: Initial corridor screening. Mid-America regional council.” 〈〉.
Sarker, A., Mishra, S., Welch, T., Golias, M., and Torrens, P. (2015). “Model framework for analyzing public transit connectivity and its application in a large-scale multimodal transit network.” Compendium of Papers in 94th Annual Board Meeting of Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, DC.
U.S. Census. (2010). “American fact finder.” 〈〉 (Mar. 20, 2013).
U.S. Census. (2013). “American fact finder.” 〈〉 (Mar. 20, 2013).
VanVoorhis, C. R. W., and Morgan, B. L. (2007). “Understanding power and rules of thumb for determining sample sizes.” Tutorials Quant. Methods Psychol., 3(2), 43–50.
Walk Score. (2011). “Most walkable cities in the United States, Canada, and Australia on Walk Score.” 〈http://www.walkscore.com/cities-and-neighborhoods/〉 (Jul. 30, 2013).
Welch, T., and Mishra, S. (2013). “A measure of equity for public transit connectivity.” Transp. Geogr., 33, 29–41.
Wilson, A. G. (1971). “A family of spatial interaction models, and associated developments.” Environ. Plann., A3.1, 1–32.
WMATA (Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority). (2011). “Transit ridership.”.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Urban Planning and Development
Volume 142 • Issue 4 • December 2016
Copyright
© 2016 American Society of Civil Engineers.
History
Received: Nov 5, 2014
Accepted: Feb 9, 2016
Published online: May 20, 2016
Discussion open until: Oct 20, 2016
Published in print: Dec 1, 2016
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.