TREC Webinar--Bus Stops: Access and Equity

This blog post covers the Portland State TREC Seminar Bus Stops: Access and Equity from November 10, 2020. Keith Bartholomew, City & Metropolitan Planning professor and associate dean at the University of Utah.

Webinar Summary

Bartholomew started out by the presentation by posing the question: Does the nature of bus stop facilities matter? He explained that of course it does, especially in today's world of impatience. Bus stops are first point of contact between riders and transit service. How the stop looks tells the public two things about agency: how the agency views value of its own services, and the value that the agency expresses towards its (potential) riders--are they valued customers or just nuisances?

On a base level, a stop should have a shelter and a place to sit, as transit agencies should look after our comfort. According to the 2016 Transit Center National On-Board Survey, bus riders value having stops with shelters behind trip duration, frequency, and fare price, but ahead of free wi-fi, distance to the bus stop, and tardiness. Of course the lack of "advanced" bus stop facilities has the biggest effect on those with mobility issues. A 2013 study indicated that those with physical disabilities wish they could use fixed-route service more than they currently do.

Bartholomew and his students began their study by examining a couple of stops along Utah Transit Authority's (UTA) 41 line that had recently added a new shelter, bench and concrete pad. When examining ridership on the line, the data was split into two groups. The treatment group was ridership from the stops in question, and the control group was from ridership elsewhere on the route. When comparing data from before and after the changes, the treatment group ridership increased by 5.9%, while the control group only increased by 1.7%. Paratransit rides also decreased in the improved stops area, but increased in the control stops area. Was this data conclusive enough to show that improved facilities led to an increase in ridership? Were there other factors and/or data errors?

The study team then examined all of UTA's 6347 bus stops, except for the ski bus stops and rail stations in remote areas. Benches were at 7.8% of stops, shelters at 7.1%, and trash cans at 8.5%. Thirty-four percent were ADA-compliant. They would divide their findings into four sets of data: bus ridership, paratransit demand, ramp deployment, and use of the Freedom Access Pass (a free pass for ADA-compliant riders). The 6347 stops was narrowed down to 3794, and divided into two groups. The treatment group (87 stops) was those that were improved between 2014-17 with a shelter, bench, and ADA compliance. The control group (3707 stops) was all those that were unimproved at the end of 2017. 

Initial results showed a positive association between ridership increase and stop improvement, and a negative association between paratransit demand stop improvements. The study team came up with a weighted score to determine how much of the ridership changes could be attributed to the stop improvements. This was based on demographic and built environment data, such as socioeconomic conditions, land use characteristics, regional accessibility, travel behavior and transit service data. They found that 51% of improved ridership, 134% of paratransit ridership decrease, 11% of ramp deployments, and 41% of Freedom Access Pass usage increase could be attributed to bus stop improvements.

The cost of ADA paratransit service per ride is increasing nationally, and Salt Lake City has double the national average. Could bus stop improvements can help save transit costs? The average cost of a full bus stop improvement is $16,000, which means installing 6000 of these costs less than building one mile of light rail.

The study concluded that improvements in bus stop facilities are associated with an increase in bus ridership and a decrease Paratransit demand. Ridership increase could be tied to modal shifts from Paratransit to fixed-route services. Improving stops is a way to increase accessibility to transit and the opportunities that it serves, especially for those with mobility-related disabilities. The only limitations were that it was a limited geographical scope and sample, and there could have been uncontrolled variables affecting transit use by those with disabilities.

Personal Opinion

I spent two summers as Bus Operations Intern at San Mateo County Transit District (SamTrans), and I recall on more than one instance that we could not implement a bus shelter in certain places for a reasons. These include: there was no sidewalk there to connect to it, ridership just wasn't high enough at that stop, the agency doesn't have enough money. All of these are real issues that transit agencies have to deal with on a daily basis. However I would be lying if I said this presentation didn't change my outlook on this issue.  At SamTrans I also spent time working with the Paratransit/Dial-A-Ride team to sort out their customer paperwork, and I wonder if it would be easier for SamTrans to focus on increasing fixed-route bus accessibility rather than paratransit, as those each ride is expensive. Unfortunately I am not privy to SamTrans's budget, and especially in a time when finances have taken a hit because of the pandemic, it might not be worth the investment to improve bus stop facilities right now. Although I definitely think SamTrans, and other agencies for that matter, should explore how many paratransit trips would be on fixed routes if there were improved facilities, and would it be financially worth it to install these facilities to cut back on paratransit? And as the 2016 survey indicated, how many trips from non-disabled people would they gain as a result? In my opinion, these are all questions transit agencies should studying if they haven't already.