An Analysis of Changing Demographics on the Washington State

Transcription

Avery, Allahyar, Shelton, Dehghani, Baker, and Deardorf
1
2
An Analysis of Changing Demographics on the Washington State Ferry
System
3
November 15, 2014
4
Total Length: 4,965 words + 10*250 = 7,465 words
1
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
Ryan P. Avery, PhD, PE, AICP (Corresponding Author)
Lead Transport Planner
Parsons Brinckerhoff
999 Third Avenue Suite 3200
Seattle, WA 98104
Tel: 206.382.5219
Email: avery@pbworld.com
Arianna Allahyar
Transportation Planner
Seattle, WA 98104
Tel: 206.382.8308
Email: allahyaran@pbworld.com
David Shelton, AICP
Senior Supervising Transportation Planner
Seattle, WA 98104
Tel: 206.382.5224
Email: shelton@pbworld.com
Youssef Dehghani, PhD, PE
Principal Professional Associate
Seattle, WA 98104
Tel: 206.382.5251
Email: dehghani@pbworld.com
T. Brent Baker
Vice President
Seattle, WA 98104
Tel: 206.382.5284
Email: baker@pbworld.com
Raymond G. Deardorf
Director of Planning
Washington State Ferries
Seattle, WA 98121
Tel: 206.515.3491
Email: deardorf@wsdot.wa.gov
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
ABSTRACT
Washington State Ferries (WSF) operates the largest ferry system in the United States, serving
12 counties within the state of Washington and the province of British Columbia, and carrying
more than 22.5 million passenger system-wide to 20 different ports in 2013. This paper provides
a high-level summary of the results of the WSF 2013 travel survey and outlines challenges and
opportunities for the WSF system. Ferry ridership has been in decline since around year 2000,
though intermediate data reveals that ridership has increased slightly in the last few years. The
reduction of state subsidies in 2000, increases in telecommuting and the beginning of a
significant demographic shift may have contributed to this decline. Demographic data indicates
that this challenge will continue in the future as the population ages, and ferry riders continue to
be older than the general population. Survey results show that ferry ridership is more
concentrated in areas with older populations, and these older riders take ferry trips less often.
The combined effects of these factors pose a challenge for the WSF system. Nevertheless, there
are opportunities to combat this trend. Improving non-motorized and transit access at the
terminals can encourage more ridership and has often been mentioned in public meetings.
Partnerships with car-sharing services at ferry terminals can further increase the attractiveness of
ferries by providing flexibility to walk-on riders. Measures like these which enhance the
attractiveness and convenience of ferry travel should be considered as WSF undertakes an update
to their Long Range Plan.
20
21
Keywords: Washington State Ferries, travel survey, population demographics
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
3
INTRODUCTION
The Washington State Ferries (WSF), a division of the Washington State Department of
Transportation (WSDOT), operates the largest ferry system in the United States (1). Twenty-two
ferries cross the inland waterways of Puget Sound , carrying more nearly 23 million passengers
and 10 million vehicles system-wide to 20 different ports in 2013. The 10-route system serves 12
counties within the state of Washington and the province of British Columbia, as shown in
FIGURE 1. In general terms, a large portion of weekday ferry service consists of residents on the
west side of Puget Sound commuting to a workplace on the east side of the sound, as the major
employment centers are in King, Pierce, and Snohomish counties. Weekend ferry service is
much more recreational in nature.
This paper presents findings of the WSF 2013 Travel Survey and its implications on
future ridership demand. WSF undertakes comprehensive system-wide travel surveys every six
to seven years to better understand the needs and travel patterns of its customers and achieve its
vision of providing unparalleled ferry transportation performance, exceptional customer service,
and a rewarding working environment. The 2013 travel survey (2) is the latest update to a
methodology originally applied in 1993 (3), with updates in 1999 (4) and 2006 (5). By applying
a similar methodology, these surveys allow for tracking of trends over time. These travel surveys
also form the foundation for managing existing demand, programming service to meet future
travel patterns, securing new capital funds, reducing operating costs, and helping to maintain its
aging fleet and terminal facilities. The data from these travel surveys also provide the basis for
updating the ferry ridership model (6, 7).
The 2013 survey is of critical interest to WSF, as other data sources have begun to
indicate some significant shifts in the demographics and travel characteristics of WSF riders (8).
Understanding these significant shifts in their customer base will help WSF to better match
services with customer needs while also providing updated inputs to the ferry travel model for
use in the forthcoming update of the WSF Long-Range Plan (9).
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
4
FIGURE 1 Ferry Routes by Travel Market in the WSF System
METHODOLOGY
The 2013 travel survey represents an update to previous surveys, including the 2006, 1999, and
1993 onboard surveys conducted by WSF. Survey questions asked about the following topics:
• Home, origin, and destination locations
• Trip purpose and frequency of use
• Access, egress, and boarding characteristics
• Travel party size and age classification
• Ferry trip characteristics
• Passenger and household demographics
The travel survey was administered to a sample of ferry users during weekdays and Saturdays
during the month of October. Average daily ridership levels in the months of May and October
are close approximations of annual average daily ridership. In contrast, ridership during the
summer months is higher due to additional tourist traffic, while mid-winter ridership is the
lowest of the year. A specific sampling plan was developed for conducting a census of all
5
1
2
3
weekday PM peak-period riders on each route for a selected survey day, as well as a sample of
vessel sailings to capture the representative travel patterns of weekday non-PM peak period and
Saturday users.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Survey Response and Usable Rates
Approximately 17,500 survey questionnaires were collected system-wide from weekday and
Saturday passengers on the sampled vessel sailings. The questionnaires were screened for
completeness and accuracy, and used to develop a comprehensive database of ferry user
characteristics, including geographically coding the locations for each respondent's trip origin
and destination to facilitate the mapping of travel patterns. Of the questionnaires collected,
16,027 records (92 percent) were sufficiently complete for tabulation and analysis. Additionally,
the number of usable records accounted for 23 percent of the total survey period ridership.
System-wide, the expected absolute precision range (at a 95 percent confidence level) for
estimating the characteristics of the ridership population is ± 1.1 percent, indicating that the
survey results are representative of the ridership population.
The percentage of usable survey responses collected as a percentage of survey-month
ridership is compared by time period in TABLE 1. As seen in the table, total survey month
ridership peaked around 2000 and has declined somewhat in most of the period since then due to
a combination of factors noted below, as well as a reduction of state subsidies in 2000 and
potential changes in travel behavior due to telecommuting and the Internet. Commute trips
represent most of the decline in travel, while discretionary travel has increased over this period.
Recently the trend has flattened, with slight ridership increases in 2010, 2012 and 2013.
TABLE 1 Comparison of survey response and usable surveys to previous years by survey
month ridership
Category
May 1993
May 1999
Oct 2006
Oct 2013
Total Ridership during Survey Month
1,983,746
2,268,643
1,925,352
1,754,257
Surveys Returned
15,750
18,000
13,801
17,527
Usable Surveys
13,832
15,082
11,844
16,027
Usable Surveys as % of Survey Month Ridership
0.7%
0.7%
0.6%
0.9%
Usable Surveys as % of Survey Period Ridership
N/A
N/A
23%
23%
22
23
24
25
26
27
Each route was surveyed on one weekday and one weekend day per route
28
29
30
31
32
SUMMARY OF TRAVEL SURVEY KEY FINDINGS
This section highlights some of the key findings identified in analyzing the 2013 survey,
including noteworthy differences between the 2013 survey results and those of the 2006 survey.
In addition, most of the following key findings relate to system-wide trends or broad-reaching
results, although some corridor-level and route-specific results are also presented.
33
34
System-wide Findings
Despite a steady increase in overall population in the 12-county WSF service area (3.9 million in
The product of the travel survey is a complete and organized survey dataset available to
the public and WSDOT staff for operational and planning purposes. This paper presents the
results and major findings from this survey research effort, including trend comparisons with
previous surveys.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
6
1999, 4.3 million in 2006, and 4.6 million in 2013), system-wide ridership has decreased over
much of the past 15 years (72,200 per day in 1999, 65,300 per day in 2006, and 61,700 in 2013),
and has only shown signs of flattening in the most recent three years. Multiple factors likely
contribute to this:
•
Significant fare increases well in excess of general inflation (the base central cross-sound
fare for a vehicle and driver increased from $6.50 in 1999 to $11.25 in 2006, to $12.90 in
2013).
•
Service reductions resulting in 10 percent fewer sailings than in 2000.
•
An aging population of riders (average age in 1993 was 42, 48 in 2006, 49 in 2013).
Approximately 18 percent of riders are retired and another 14 percent are planning on
retiring in the next five years. Furthermore, the percentage of survey respondents age 65
or older grew from 13 percent in 2006 to 18 percent in 2013.
•
Increases in telecommuting (25 percent of weekday travelers reported that they
telecommute at least one day per week compared to 20 percent in 2006).
•
A shift in trip purposes away from frequent commuter ridership as a result of the above
trends (weekday: 58 percent work/school in 2006, 54 percent in 2013; Saturday: 59
percent recreation/shopping in 2006, 67 percent in 2013).
•
The recession toward the end of the last decade is also credited with having negatively
impacted ridership.
•
Of respondents with a valid home location provided, 92 percent live within the WSF
service area. Thus, regional economic and demographic trends would have much more
influence on ridership than national tourism trends.
20
21
22
23
24
25
These factors vary by corridor and individual route, and are discussed in more detail in the
following sections.
26
27
28
29
30
Corridor-level Findings
The corridor analysis focuses on ridership travel-sheds and the geographic characteristics that
segment the WSF market based upon the patterns of trip origins and destinations exhibited on
groups of one or more similar routes. Below are a few of the key corridor-level findings for the
four multi-route corridors.
31
32
33
34
35
San Juan Islands Corridor
The San Juan Islands Corridor is comprised of the Anacortes–San Juan Islands route (including
inter-island routes) and the Anacortes–Sidney, British Columbia international ferry route. Due to
limited other options, the majority of visitors and residents to and from the islands travel via the
ferry system.
36
37
38
39
40
•
Weekday trip frequency is much lower for the San Juan Islands Corridor than the other
corridors (two trips per week vs. three to five for the other corridors), as is the percentage
of work/school trips.
•
The largest trip purpose share of total trips has shifted since 2006 from work/school trips
(40 percent in 2006) to recreational/shopping trips (40 percent in 2013).
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
7
•
The average age of survey respondents increased from 50 in 2006 to 53 in 2013, with a
greater percentage of survey respondents over the age of 64, and almost a quarter of the
respondents indicating that they are retired.
•
The percentage of weekday ferry travelers making a round-trip on the same day versus
some other day grew from 48 percent in 2006 to 56 percent in 2013 for the corridor; this
parallels an increase by 6 percent in non-motorized boardings in which a vehicle was
parked at the terminal on weekdays.
•
Same day round-trips for weekend trips decreased from 61 percent in 2006 to 48 percent
in 2013.
•
Of respondents riding on routes serving the San Juan Islands, 53 percent who provided a
valid home location live on the San Juan Islands.
North Sound Corridor
The North Sound Corridor is comprised of the Port Townsend–Coupeville and Mukilteo–Clinton
ferry routes. While Whidbey Island does have a bridge at the north end that provides non-ferry
access, the length of the island (36 miles) and the limited capacity of the bridge mean that WSF
provides the main access route via the Mukilteo–Clinton and Port Townsend–Coupeville routes.
•
The trip purpose share of weekday work/school trips has decreased from 52 percent in
2006 to 43 percent in 2013, while the share of recreation/shopping trips has increased
from 26 percent to 32 percent.
•
Recreational/shopping Saturday trips increased from 57 percent in 2006 to 71 percent in
2013, which corresponds with the number of round-trip patterns doubling from 2006
Saturday trips in the North Sound Corridor.
•
More than half of walk-on boardings during the PM peak period access or egress the
ferry by transit, while the vast majority of walk-on boardings during non-PM peak period
and Saturdays access or egress by vehicle.
•
Saturday North Sound Corridor routes exhibited an almost 20-point increase in the
percentage share of responses that indicated they parked a vehicle prior to walking
aboard the ferry, which was specifically attributed to the changes on the Mukilteo–
Clinton route.
Central Sound Corridor
The Central Sound Corridor is comprised of the three central cross-sound routes: the Seattle–
Bainbridge Island, Seattle–Bremerton, and Edmonds–Kingston ferry routes. The corridor serves
Kitsap County, Bainbridge Island, and the Olympic Peninsula via the Hood Canal Bridge.
•
Central Sound continues to be the highest-traveled corridor in the WSF system, with 12.4
million riders per year, down from 13.2 million passengers in 2006 and a peak was in
1999 with 14.4 million passengers.
•
More than 60 percent of trips are associated with a work/school purpose, with a
frequency of five trips per week on weekdays as compared to three trips per week for the
North Sound.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
8
•
Since 2006 the Seattle–Bainbridge Island route has exhibited a more rapidly aging rider
profile than any route in the corridor, with the number of passengers over age 64
increasing from about 8 percent to 17 percent between the 2006 and 2013 surveys.
•
The Seattle–Bremerton route remains stable as the route with the youngest rider
population, with an average age of 39 years old.
•
The decrease in vehicle boardings from 2006 to 2013 ranged from 9 percentage points on
the Seattle–Bremerton route, to 7 points on the Seattle–Bainbridge Island route, to 3
points on the Edmonds–Kingston route. This is consistent with annual ticket sales
statistics, which show a similar yet less substantial trend in decreased vehicle boardings.
•
There is some increase in the number of trips with origins and destinations nearer to the
terminals on all of the routes in this corridor, and a corresponding decrease in trips
to/from points farther away from the terminals on each side of the crossing.
South Sound Corridor
The South Sound Corridor is comprised of the Fauntleroy–Vashon, Fauntleroy–Southworth,
Southworth–Vashon, and Point Defiance–Tahlequah ferry routes. The corridor provides
connectivity between Downtown Seattle via Fauntleroy in West Seattle, the north end of Vashon
Island, and Southworth in Kitsap County. This corridor also connects the south end of Vashon
Island with Tacoma. Historically, WSF operated a passenger-only ferry service between
Downtown Seattle and Vashon Island, facilitating transfers to Southworth at Vashon. King
County officially took over operation of this service in 2008.
•
The South Sound Corridor, like others in the system, is experiencing an aging population,
a corresponding reduction in the frequency of commuter trips, and a slow shift toward
recreational and shopping trips.
•
Although driving is still the predominant method of use on South Sound routes (more
than 80 percent of weekday trips), the percentage of non-motorized trips in which a
vehicle was parked at the terminal increased significantly between 2006 (26 percent) and
2013 (40 percent).
•
The number of trips to areas around the terminals on all of the routes in this corridor
increased, and trips farther away from the terminals on each side decreased.
30
31
32
33
34
CHALLENGES
One of the key challenges facing the WSF system is changing demographics, which has been
revealed by fare collection data and travel surveys since 1999. This change may result from a
variety of factors including travel costs, age, and changing travel patterns. This section highlights
upcoming trends which demonstrate that the pace of change may increase in the coming decades.
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
An Aging Population
The Washington State Office of Financial Management (OFM) maintains historical and
forecasted population by 5-year age cohorts for Washington State. OFM historical population
data from 1980 to 2013 included age by county, while forecasts are only provided at the state
level. Only the decennial census years were summarized and aggregate into three age groups:
under 18, 18-64, and over 64. In order to recognize some level of geographic variation, counties
were grouped into five regions (illustrated in FIGURE 2), and the statewide forecasted growth
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
rates were proportionally applied to each of the three age range groups and scaled to match the
state-wide total.
The resulting regional populations in ten-year intervals are shown in FIGURE 3 for
historical and future years combined (1980-2040). This chart illustrates that the Central Puget
Sound region clearly has the largest share of the statewide population, while the other regions are
very similar in population size. There is also clear population growth over time in each of the
five regions, with statewide population expected to reach 8.79 million by the year 2040.
8
9
FIGURE 2 Washington State County Groups
10
Population, Millions
5.0
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1980
2010
2040
Central
Puget Sound
1980
2010
2040
Other Ferry
Service Area
Age <18
1980
2010
2040
Southwest
Washington
Age 18-64
1980
2010
2040
Central
Washington
1980
2010
2040
Eastern
Washington
Age >64
FIGURE 3 Decennial Census Population by Age Range, 1980-2040
FIGURE 4 shows each age range as a share of the overall population in each region. This chart
more clearly highlights demographic trends. The aging of the Baby Boomer population is clearly
evident across all regions as the over 64 group accounts for a much larger share of overall
population in 2020, 2030, and 2040. The continued slight decline of the under 18 population is
also noted in every region, which may be due to declining birth rates. The “Other Ferry Service
Area” region shows the largest share of over 64 population in future years at over 25 percent,
which may be a result of retirement to the counties on the west side of Puget Sound. The Central
Puget Sound region has a lower share of over 64 population in the future compared to the other
regions, which may be due to net migration into this region in particular.
Share of Overall Population
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1980
2010
2040
Central
Puget Sound
13
14
1980
2010
2040
Other Ferry
Service Area
Age <18
1980
2010
2040
Southwest
Washington
Age 18-64
1980
2010
2040
Central
Washington
1980
2010
2040
Eastern
Washington
Age >64
FIGURE 4 Age Range as a Percent of Decennial Census Population, 1980-2040
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
11
Aging WSF System Riders
FIGURE 5 compares the distribution of the age of survey respondents to the overall WSF service
area and statewide population (excluding people under age 15 since they were not surveyed).
Between the WSF service area and statewide areas, the age distribution is very similar, but the
WSF service area has a higher representation of the working age population (25-65) than
statewide. This is expected, as the share of jobs is likely higher in the WSF service area as well,
especially in mainland King County. The key observation is the disproportionately higher share
of survey respondents in the 55 to 64-year age range compared to the WSF service area and
statewide populations. This implies that ferry system riders tend to be older than the general
population.
Percentage Share of Population
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
15-24 yrs
25-34 yrs
2013 Survey Data
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
35-44 yrs
WSF Service Area
45-54 yrs
55-64 yrs
65+ yrs
Statewide Population
FIGURE 5 System-wide Traveler Age Compared to WSF Service Area and Statewide
Population
Home Location of riders on the WSF System
FIGURE 6 presents the density of weekday ferry riders’ home locations for all routes. Weekend
home locations showed a similar overall geographic distribution, though the percentage share of
riders who reside on the east side of Puget Sound is generally higher for Saturday, which may be
expected due to the more recreational nature of weekend travel. Of respondents with a valid
home location provided, 92 percent live within the WSF service area.
When comparing ferry rider’s home locations by county as a percentage share of county
population, the percentages are highest in San Juan County in particular (27 percent), as well as
Island, Kitsap, and Jefferson Counties (9, 8, and 7 percent respectively). This implies that
residents in these counties are more dependent on the ferry system than in other counties. While
these high percentages alone do not constitute a challenge, the previous population information
showed that the population age 65 or older will increase the most in these counties. This
reinforces the likelihood of ferry riders continuing to be older than the general population.
12
1
2
FIGURE 6 Home Locations of Ferry System Riders
3
4
5
6
7
Trip-Making Characteristics of Older Riders
FIGURE 7 shows the number of one-way trips taken in the past week by ferry survey
respondents by age range. The figure shows that riders age 65 or older are more likely to take
only one to four trips per week compared to other age groups, while they are least likely to take
more than 5 ferry trips per week. The percent share of trips for riders age 65 and older is lowest
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
13
for the 7-8 and more than 9 trips per week categories. The overall trip-making behavior become
even clearer when aggregated to weekly person-trips as shown in FIGURE 8. This figure shows
that as riders age, they tend to take more trips up until age 50-64, where those riders account for
40 percent of all trips. However, at age 65 or older the percent share of total person trips drops to
the lowest level, clearly indicating that riders over age 65 take fewer trips than other age groups.
This result may be explained in part by regular ferry commuters who, once retired, no longer
take the ferry nearly as often. Thus, as ferry riders age faster than the general population and
older riders travel less frequently, ferry ridership growth may be dampened even if overall
population and employment in the region increase.
Percentage Share of Trips
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1-2 trips
3-4 trips
15-29 yrs
10
11
5-6 trips
30-49 yrs
7-8 trips
50-64 yrs
9+ trips
65+ yrs
FIGURE 7 Weekly One-Way Trip Frequency by Age
Percentage Share of Total Weekly Trips
45%
40%
40.0%
35%
30%
31.8%
25%
20%
15%
10%
14.7%
13.5%
5%
0%
15-29 yrs
30-49 yrs
50-64 yrs
65+ yrs
12
13
FIGURE 8 Weekly Person-Trips by Age Range
14
15
Summary
The previous sections illustrate age demographics, the age of riders, where these riders reside,
14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
and trip-making characteristics by age. The combined effect of these effects is considerable:
1. The average age of the general population is increasing due to aging Baby Boomers
2. Ferry riders are older than the general population
3. Ferry “importance” is strongest in areas aging the fastest
4. Older riders make fewer ferry trips
In light of these effects, it is clear that there will be continued pressure on the WSF system due to
changing demographics, which could be a dampening factor on ridership growth. As WSF
begins the process to update their long-range plan, some attention should be given to these
effects and how they may be accommodated or even offset by attracting new rider populations.
While targeting land-use patterns to encourage changes in development and travel patterns could
have an impact, changes on this scale require decades to achieve and require the support and
coordination of many stakeholders.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
OPPORTUNITIES TO ATTRACT MILLENNIALS
Although the previous section presents a strong case for changing demographics, there are some
opportunities to respond to these changes, particularly by appealing to the next generation of
ferry riders: Millennials. During peak hours, vehicle boardings are often constrained by ferry
capacity, and other research has demonstrated that young people are driving less and using
transit and alternative modes of transport more than in previous generations (10, 11, 12).
Accordingly, this section focuses on approaches to increase walk-on ridership and access from
alternative modes of transport.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
Proximity to Ferry Terminals
The home locations, origins, and destinations of travelers who boarded by vehicle were
examined for proximity to ferry terminals. Vehicle boardings were analyzed at a distance of 2
miles because this represents relatively short trips where there is a higher potential for a trip to
shift to a non-motorized mode (walk or bike). Roughly 12 percent of the weekday survey
respondents that boarded by vehicle live within 2 miles of the ferry terminal. Additionally, 14
percent of vehicle boarders started or ended their trip (the trip origin or destination) within 2
miles of a terminus, and 3 percent of trips have both the trip origin and destination located within
2 miles of a ferry terminal. These trips present an opportunity to encourage riders to shift to nonmotorized modes of transport; however, investment in infrastructure such as improved sidewalks
and bicycle facilities may be needed to support these alternative modes.
Although the shifting of vehicle trips to walk-on trips does not increase ridership, the
improved access may enhance the attractiveness and lead to a modest increase in ridership.
Improved non-motorized access may also allow routes with high vehicle use to accommodate
more vehicles.
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
Improved Coordination with Transit Service
Survey respondents who boarded by vehicle were asked to indicate reasons why they chose to do
so. Several of these reasons related to transit use and are presented in TABLE 2. In particular, the
“transit is not convenient” and “transit does not go to destination” options imply that the
respondent may have considered taking transit had it been available. All of the options below
indicate an opportunity to shift vehicle boarders to transit while also attracting new ridership
with improvements such as increased service, better pedestrian connections, and more
geographic coverage. This theme of improving transit access and service also agrees with
feedback from public meetings hosted by WSF in June 2014.
15
1
TABLE 2 Reasons Vehicle Occupants Did Not Choose to Take Transit
Transit is not
convenient
Weekday
System-wide
Transit does not go to
destination
Too far to walk to
destination
11%
7%
23%
7%
7%
25%
13%
9%
26%
10%
4%
20%
19%
11%
30%
9%
7%
27%
7%
7%
23%
11%
8%
29%
6%
6%
25%
14%
10%
31%
Saturday
System-wide
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Carsharing at Terminals
Carsharing programs have blossomed in recent years, first with the appearance of short-term
rental services such as Zipcar and car2go, and more recently with on-demand services like Uber
and Lyft. All of these services have a presence in the Puget Sound region. The 2013 WSF Travel
Survey asked about car-sharing use for the first time, but very few (0.1 percent) of all trips used
this mode as part of a trip. One reason for this low use is the fact that car-sharing is currently
limited mostly to the Seattle city area, so only trips at the Seattle Colman Dock and Fauntleroy
Ferry Terminal can take advantage of car2go and Zipcar services. The Fauntleroy terminal is
interesting because although it lies south of the main car2go home area where car2go vehicles
may be parked, a special small zone was created near the terminal to allow ferry riders to be able
to take advantage of the service. This zone originally encountered controversy as area neighbors
complained about the vehicles taking up available neighborhood parking.
The ferry system can leverage these existing services to enhance the ferry experience.
First, WSF could partner with companies to provide special parking for car-sharing vehicles at
the terminal. In more rural ferry terminal locations, this kind of arrangement might align best
with Zipcar’s service model of round-trips where the vehicle is always returned to the original
location. However, in urban areas the car2go model of one-way trips could also be feasible. Such
a program could begin as a pilot program at a few select ferry terminals to assess the demand,
user response, and potential for growth. Partnering with existing services also increases the
likelihood of success since existing services now have many years of experience in managing
vehicle demand and neighborhood/area characteristics which support car-sharing services.
On-demand services like traditional taxi services and newer variants may make use of
existing drop-off and pick-up areas at many terminals. However, congestion at some terminals
may result in limited use of these on-demand services. In these circumstances, it is advisable to
study what changes can be made to better support on-demand services.
16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The Washington State Ferry system provides an important connection to residents of the Puget
Sound region. The 2013 WSF travel survey, like previous surveys, provides an important
understanding of the ferry system as WSF prepares to update their Long Range Plan. The results
of the 2013 travel survey show that while ridership has declined from peak ridership achieved
around the year 2000, it has modestly increased in the last few years. Population trends indicate
an aging population, and survey responses indicate that the ferry ridership population is older
than the population at large. Furthermore, counties with a higher dependency on the ferry system
are aging more rapidly than other counties in the ferry service area. These issues, combined with
the observation that riders over age 65 take the fewest trips of any age group, indicate that the
ferry system can expect significant demographic changes in the coming years.
Despite these demographic changes, there are opportunities for WSF to attract new
populations, including the Millennial generation. Improvements in pedestrian and bicycle
facilities and transit connections to terminals can shift vehicle boarders to walk-on access and
increase walk-on passengers. Partnerships or pilot programs with car-sharing organizations at the
terminals can also increase ridership by offering riders greater flexibility, particularly in cases
where people are currently boarding by vehicle but only need the vehicle on one end of the trip.
Through these and other innovative measures, WSF can address its current ridership challenges
while also positioning itself to meet the shifting travel patterns and behaviors of future ferry
patrons.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors wish to thank Sherry Shariat for her contributions to the report. The authors also
thank ETC Institute for their execution of the on-board survey and initial data cleaning. The
Washington State Ferries Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) is also appreciated for direction
and insights during the travel survey. The opinions and views presented in this paper are solely
the authors and do not necessarily represent the official policy of Washington State Ferries (a
division of the Washington State Department of Transportation) and their respective staff.
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
REFERENCES
1. Washington State Department of Transportation. About Washington State Ferries, 2014.
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/ferries/yourwsf/ourfleet/. Accessed June 2, 2014.
2. Parsons Brinckerhoff, Inc. Washington State Ferries 2013 Origin-Destination Travel Survey Report.
Prepared for the Washington State Department of Transportation Ferries Division, Seattle, WA,
August 2014.
3. Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas Inc., Pacific Rim Resources. Washington State Ferries 1993
Origin-Destination Surveys. Prepared for Washington State Department of Transportation Marine
Division, Seattle, WA, March 1994.
4. Parsons Brinckerhoff, Inc. WSF 1999 Travel Survey: Analysis & Results Report. Prepared for the
Washington State Department of Transportation Ferries Division, Seattle, WA, June 2000.
5. Cambridge Systematics, Inc. Washington State Ferries 2006 Origin Destination Onboard Survey.
Prepared for the Washington State Department of Transportation Ferries Division, June 2007.
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Ferries/Planning/odsurvey.htm, accessed 15 May 2014.
6. Dehghani, Y., K. Saranathan, and C. Gihring. Comprehensive Planning Model for Ferry Ridership
Forecasting Analysis in Puget Sound Region. In Transportation Research Record 1608, TRB,
National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1997, pp. 30-39.
7. Dehghani, Y., M.K. Adury, M. Bradley, and C.K. Gihring. Washington State Ferries’ Travel Demand
Model Development and Forecasting Analysis Programs: A 10-Year Perspective. In
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
17
Transportation Research Record 1793, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C.,
2002, pp. 106-118.
8. Opinion Research Corporation. 2008 Ferry Customer Survey Technical Paper #2: WSF Customer
Characteristics. Prepared for the Washington State Transportation Commission, Olympia, WA.
9. Washington State Department of Transportation Ferries Division Final Long-Range Plan Report.
Washington State Department of Transportation, Olympia, WA, 2009.
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/ferries/planning/ESHB2358, accessed 16 July 2014.
10. Zmud, J., V.P. Barabba, M. Bradley, J.R. Kuzmyak, M. Zmud, and D. Orrell. Strategic Issues Facing
Transportation Volume 6: The Effects of Socio-Demographics on Future Travel Demand.
NCHRP Report 750, Vol. 6. Transportation Research Board, Washington D.C., 2014.
11. U.S. PIRG Education Fund, Frontier Group. Millennials in Motion: Changing Travel Habits of Young
Americans and the Implications for Public Policy. http://uspirg.org/reports/usp/millennialsmotion, accessed 29 October 2014.
12. American Public Transit Association (APTA). Millennials & Mobility: Understanding the Millennial
Mindset. http://www.apta.com/resources/reportsandpublications/Documents/APTA-Millennialsand-Mobility.pdf, accessed 29 October 2014.

An Analysis of Changing Demographics on the Washington State

Transcription

Similar documents

5K Labor Day Run - Village of Dobbs Ferry

buckhead tour of homes - Special Olympics Georgia

The Saddle Club at the Equestrian Centre

44887 CL saddle club

buckhead tour of homes - Special Olympics Georgia

Four Hour Tangier Encounter

Ferry Landing - West Newbury Open Space

TThe Wave Ferry Connector Brochure

Program - Fraser Valley Distance Education

2D Desaru Family Fun Daily Departure