Access Across America: Transit 2017

Technical Report Documentation Page
1. Report No. 2. 3. Recipients Accession No.

CTS 18-12
4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date
June 2018
Access Across America: Transit 2017 6.
7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No.

Andrew Owen and Brendan Murphy
9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Project/Task/Work Unit No.
Accessibility Observatory CTS 2016016
University of Minnesota 11. Contract (C) or Grant (G) No.
Minneapolis, MN 55455
United States
12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered
Center for Transportation Studies Final Report
University of Minnesota 14. Sponsoring Agency Code
200 Transportation and Safety Building
511 Washington Ave. SE
Minneapolis, MN 55455
15. Supplementary Notes
http://ao.umn.edu/publications/
http://www.cts.umn.edu/Publications/ResearchReports/
16. Abstract (Limit: 250 words)
Accessibility is the ease and feasibility of reaching valued destinations. It can be measured for a wide array of
transportation modes, to different types of destinations, and at different times of day. There are a variety of ways to
measure accessibility, but the number of destinations reachable within a given travel time is the most
comprehensible and transparent as well as the most directly comparable across cities.
This study estimates the accessibility to jobs by transit and walking for each of the United States’ 11 million census
blocks, and analyzes these data in 49 of the 50 largest (by population) metropolitan areas. Transit is used for an
estimated 5 percent of commuting trips in the United States, making it the second most widely used commute mode
after driving. Travel times by transit are calculated using detailed pedestrian networks and full transit schedules for
the 7:00 – 9:00 a.m. period. The calculations include all components of a transit journey, including “last-mile”
access and egress walking segments and transfers, and account for minute-by-minute variations in service
frequency.
This report presents detailed accessibility values for each metropolitan area, as well as block-level maps that
illustrate the spatial patterns of accessibility within each area. A separate publication, Access Across America:
Transit 2017 Methodology, describes the data and methodology used in this evaluation.
This analysis uses the same tools and techniques as Access Across America: Transit 2015 and 2016, and at the
same fully national scale; availability of GTFS data has increased in consistency. For these reasons, direct
comparisons between transit accessibility results of 2015 and 2016 are possible, and comparisons and time-series
analysis are included in these reports going forward.
17. Document Analysis/Descriptors 18. Availability Statement
accessibility, transit, commuting, work trips, land use, travel No restrictions. Document available from:
time, travel behavior, urban transportation National Technical Information Services,
Alexandria, Virginia 22312
19. Security Class (this report) 20. Security Class (this page) 21. No. of Pages 22. Price
Unclassified Unclassified 167
Authors
Andrew Owen
Director, Accessibility Observatory
University of Minnesota
Brendan Murphy
Lead Researcher, Accessibility Observatory
Acknowledgements
The development of this report was made possible by sponsorship from:
• Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department
• California Department of Transportation
• District Department of Transportation
• Federal Highway Administration
• Florida Department of Transportation
• Iowa Department of Transportation
• Maryland Department of Transportation
• Minnesota Department of Transportation
• North Carolina Department of Transportation
• Tennessee Department of Transportation
• Virginia Department of Transportation
• Washington State Department of Transportation

Contents
1 Introduction 1
2 Accessibility to Jobs by Transit 3

2.1 Metropolitan Area Rankings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2 Longitudinal Analyses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3 Discussion 8
3.1 Transit Service Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.2 Land Use Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.3 Comparisons With 2016 Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.4 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4 Metropolitan Area Data and Maps 12

2 Accessibility to Jobs by Transit
Table 2 gives the accessibility values for each metropolitan area, in alphabetical order, based on January,
2017 transit schedules. The columns represent the number of jobs that a typical worker residing in the
city can reach within 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, and 60 minutes of travel, between 7:00 and 9:00 AM, by
transit and walking.
2.1 Metropolitan Area Rankings

The rankings of accessibility across U.S. cities for 2017 are shown in Table 3. The ranking is based
on a weighted average, where the jobs reachable within each threshold are given a decreasing weight as
travel time increases. A job reachable within 10 minutes counts more toward the ranking than a job
reachable within 20, and so on. The 10 metro areas where workers can, on average, reach the most jobs
are listed below. Within the speci c time thresholds, the rankings vary.
1. New York
2. San Francisco
3. Chicago
4. Washington
5. Boston
6. Los Angeles
7. Philadelphia
8. Seattle
9. San Jose
10. Denver
2.2 Longitudinal Analyses

The 1-year relative gains and losses of weighted transit accessibility across U.S. cities between 2016 and
2017 are shown in Table 4. The differences detailed here are relative percentage changes in weighted
accessibility. Following are the 10 metro areas which saw the largest gains in relative transit accessibility
over 2016 are as follows.
1. Kansas City
2. Charlotte
3. Austin
3
Access Across America:
Transit 2017
Final Report
Prepared by:
Andrew Owen
Brendan Murphy
Accessibility Observatory
Center for Transportation Studies
CTS 18-12
Access Across America:
Transit 2017
Final Report
Prepared by:
Andrew Owen
Brendan Murphy
Accessibility Observatory
June 2018
Published by:

200 Transportation and Safety Building
511 Washington Ave. S.E.
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455
This report represents the results of research conducted by the authors and does not necessarily
reflect the official views or policy of the Center for Transportation Studies or the University of Minnesota.
Executive Summary
Accessibility is the ease and feasibility of reaching valuable destinations. Accessibility can be measured
for a wide array of transportation modes, to different types of destinations, and at different times of day.
There are a variety of ways to de ne accessibility, but the number of destinations reachable within a
given travel time is the most comprehensible and transparent—as well as the most directly comparable
between cities, and other geographic areas. This report focuses on accessibility to jobs by transit. Jobs
are the most signi cant non-home destination, and job accessibility is an important consideration in
the attractiveness and usefulness of a place or area. Transit is used for an estimated 5% of commuting
trips in the United States nationwide, making it the second most widely used commute mode after
driving.
This study estimates the accessibility to jobs by transit and walking for each of the United States’ 11
million census blocks, and analyzes these data in 49 of the 50 largest (by population) metropolitan areas.
Travel times by transit are calculated using detailed pedestrian networks and full transit schedules for
the 7:00 – 9:00 AM period. The calculations include all components of a transit journey, including “last
mile” access and egress walking segments and transfers, and account for minute-by-minute variations
in service frequency.
Rankings are determined by a weighted average of accessibility, with a higher weight given to closer,
easier to access jobs. Jobs reachable within ten minutes are weighted most heavily, and jobs are given
decreasing weights as travel time increases up to 60 minutes. Based on this measure, the 10 metropolitan
areas with the greatest accessibility to jobs by transit are:
1. New York
2. San Francisco
3. Chicago
4. Washington
5. Boston
6. Los Angeles
7. Philadelphia
8. Seattle
9. San Jose
10. Denver
Additionally, rankings based on 1-year changes in weighted average accessibility are also provided,
comparing the results of Access Across America: Transit 2016 with the results of the 2017 study. The 10
metropolitan areas with the greatest 1-year relative gains in accessibility to jobs by transit are:
1. Kansas City
2. Charlotte
3. Austin
4. Columbus
5. San Francisco
6. Orlando
7. Las Vegas
8. Phoenix
9. Minneapolis
10. Cincinnati
This report presents detailed accessibility values for each metropolitan area, as well as block-level
maps that illustrate the spatial patterns of accessibility within each area. A separate publication, Access
Across America: Transit 2017 Methodology, describes the data and methodology used in this evaluation.
This analysis uses the same tools and techniques as Access Across America: Transit 2015 and Access
Across America: Transit 2016, and at the same fully national scale; availability of GTFS data has increased
in consistency. For these reasons, direct comparisons between transit accessibility results of 2016 and
2017 are possible, and longitudinal analysis is now included in these reports as of the 2017 study, via
comparing accessibility results for 2017 and 2015.
4
1 Introduction
Accessibility is the ease and feasibility of reaching valuable destinations. It combines the simpler metric
of mobility with the understanding that travel is driven by a desire to reach destinations. Accessibility
can be measured for a wide range of transportation modes, to different types of destinations, and at
different times of day. There are a variety of ways to de ne accessibility, but the number of destinations
reachable within a given travel time is the most comprehensible and transparent—as well as the most
directly comparable across cities. This report focuses on accessibility to jobs by transit. Jobs are the
most signi cant non-home destination, and economic accessibility is an important consideration in
the attractiveness and usefulness of a place or area. Transit is used for an estimated 5% of commuting
trips in the United States, making it the second most widely used commute mode after driving.1 The
commute mode share of transit can be higher in individual metropolitan areas: 31% in the New York
metropolitan area; 11% in Chicago; 8% in Seattle.2
Accessibility is not a new idea.3 Historically, however, implementations of accessibility evalua-
tion have typically focused on individual cities or metropolitan areas. Recent work has demonstrated
the feasibility and value of systematically evaluating accessibility across multiple metropolitan areas by
auto,4 and by transit.5
This study estimates the accessibility to jobs by transit and walking for each of the United States’ 11
million census blocks, and analyzes these data in 49 of the 50 largest (by population) metropolitan areas
using transit schedules from 2017. The city excluded from comparisons due to lack of available GTFS
data is Memphis, TN, which ranks 41st by metropolitan area population. Table 1 lists the included
metropolitan areas, ordered by the total employment within each.
Travel times by transit are calculated using detailed pedestrian networks and full transit schedules for
the 7:00 – 9:00 AM period. The calculations include all components of a transit journey, including “last
mile” access and egress walking segments and transfers, and account for minute-by-minute variations
in service frequency.
Section 2 presents the accessibility values for the included metropolitan areas and ranks metropoli-
tan areas by accessibility, as well as by 1-year gains or losses in weighted accessibility between 2017
and 2016. Section 3 discusses these results and their implications, and Section 4 provides data and
maps describing patterns of accessibility in individual metropolitan areas. A separate document, Access
Across America: Transit 2017 Methodology, describes the data and detailed methodology used in the
evaluation.
1
McKenzie (2014)
2
American Community Survey 2012 5-year estimates
3
See Hansen (1959) for its origins, and Geurs and Van Eck (2001) and Handy and Niemeier (1997) for reviews.
4
Levinson (2013) Levine et al. (2012)
5
Ramsey and Bell (2014), Tomer et al. (2011)
1
Table 1: Metropolitan Areas Ranked by Total Employment
Rank Area Total Employment
1 New York 8,654,470
2 Los Angeles 5,636,421
3 Chicago 4,389,339
4 Dallas 3,206,364
5 Houston 2,888,073
6 Philadelphia 2,793,982
7 Washington 2,776,148
8 Atlanta 2,416,397
9 Miami 2,412,346
10 Boston 2,401,512
11 San Francisco 2,164,298
12 Detroit 1,869,538
13 Phoenix 1,865,829
14 Minneapolis 1,794,806
15 Seattle 1,709,920
16 Riverside 1,635,100
17 San Diego 1,363,986
18 Denver 1,356,387
19 St. Louis 1,310,349
20 Baltimore 1,291,995
21 Tampa 1,227,356
22 Pittsburgh 1,100,915
23 Portland 1,093,778
24 Orlando 1,050,065
25 Kansas City 1,023,563
26 Cincinnati 1,018,914
27 San Antonio 986,091
28 Cleveland 955,181
29 Austin 917,901
30 Sacramento 915,759
31 Columbus 911,367
32 San Jose 909,053
33 Las Vegas 897,183
34 Indianapolis 886,380
35 Charlotte 877,360
36 Nashville 801,589
37 Milwaukee 771,322
38 Providence 757,913
39 Virginia Beach 707,752
40 Louisville 627,630
41 Jacksonville 626,060
42 Richmond 617,617
43 Hartford 593,012
44 Raleigh 583,916
45 Salt Lake City 576,320
46 Oklahoma City 574,561
47 Buffalo 529,252
48 New Orleans 513,830
49 Birmingham 476,681
Employment totals are based on LEHD estimates and may not match other sources.
2
4. Columbus
5. San Francisco
6. Orlando
7. Las Vegas
8. Phoenix
9. Minneapolis
10. Cincinnati
Additional details about each metropolitan area, including block-level maps of accessibility, are
presented in Section 4.
4
Table 2: Number of Jobs Reachable by Number of Minutes, 2017
Area 10 min 20 min 30 min 40 min 50 min 60 min
Atlanta 327 1,936 7,152 18,963 40,575 72,599
Austin 479 3,125 11,444 27,794 51,601 81,826
Baltimore 656 5,202 17,344 39,068 71,035 111,707
Birmingham 195 914 2,713 6,097 11,236 17,858
Boston 1,569 12,461 44,014 102,793 185,162 275,182
Buffalo 459 3,348 11,101 25,397 46,002 70,219
Charlotte 412 2,342 7,682 18,417 34,868 55,578
Chicago 1,765 15,515 53,831 124,251 224,898 342,635
Cincinnati 365 2,157 7,080 16,385 30,562 48,793
Cleveland 439 2,527 8,703 22,317 44,429 74,528
Columbus 404 3,165 10,857 24,913 46,249 74,521
Dallas 472 3,132 10,699 27,006 56,150 100,304
Denver 820 6,136 20,665 50,416 102,821 180,478
Detroit 298 1,877 6,349 16,277 34,937 64,677
Hartford 455 3,438 11,300 24,037 41,986 64,698
Houston 474 3,637 13,639 33,725 66,836 114,960
Indianapolis 332 2,278 7,491 17,349 32,467 52,705
Jacksonville 277 1,211 3,765 9,340 18,984 32,651
Kansas City 351 2,094 6,864 15,944 29,505 47,330
Las Vegas 286 2,094 8,350 24,295 57,145 110,821
Los Angeles 1,246 10,266 38,647 96,294 194,784 341,437
Louisville 321 2,155 7,263 17,588 33,099 52,872
Miami 753 4,558 14,419 33,960 66,127 113,542
Milwaukee 697 5,216 19,383 47,810 89,491 139,321
Minneapolis 558 4,455 18,029 46,801 90,650 146,905
Nashville 283 1,595 5,380 12,248 21,929 34,390
New Orleans 592 3,413 10,429 21,972 35,117 48,220
New York 6,132 62,161 213,407 471,409 840,599 1,287,186
Oklahoma City 262 1,587 4,936 11,529 21,693 35,139
Orlando 331 1,811 5,596 13,357 27,105 48,584
Philadelphia 1,337 11,406 38,185 80,695 138,076 205,692
Phoenix 325 2,611 10,290 28,260 60,739 109,972
Pittsburgh 514 3,133 12,317 28,734 50,509 76,673
Portland 819 5,785 20,666 50,787 96,831 156,682
Providence 535 3,205 9,751 20,457 35,071 53,339
Raleigh 244 1,347 4,371 10,631 21,036 36,321
Richmond 349 2,201 6,719 13,934 22,782 33,016
Riverside 203 1,371 4,732 11,519 22,827 39,302
Sacramento 478 2,969 9,430 22,005 43,074 72,932
Salt Lake City 499 3,877 14,721 38,625 81,033 144,560
San Antonio 328 2,326 9,306 24,329 49,566 86,468
San Diego 655 3,727 12,109 30,587 63,522 113,058
San Francisco 2,773 25,965 81,215 169,525 283,096 415,289
San Jose 654 5,173 19,254 51,597 111,469 203,107
Seattle 1,478 9,530 29,003 65,316 117,114 185,318
St. Louis 358 2,102 7,268 18,833 37,894 64,119
Tampa 343 2,078 6,891 16,252 31,310 52,728
Virginia Beach 284 1,492 4,649 10,542 19,919 33,168
Washington 1,324 12,775 50,551 120,916 226,810 357,510
5
Table 3: Rank of Accessibility by Metropolitan Area, 2017
Rank Weighted 10 min 20 min 30 min 40 min 50 min 60 min
Average
1 New York New York New York New York New York New York New York
2 San Francisco San Francisco San Francisco San Francisco San Francisco San Francisco San Francisco
3 Chicago Chicago Chicago Chicago Chicago Washington Washington
4 Washington Boston Washington Washington Washington Chicago Chicago
5 Boston Seattle Boston Boston Boston Los Angeles Los Angeles
6 Los Angeles Philadelphia Philadelphia Los Angeles Los Angeles Boston Boston
7 Philadelphia Washington Los Angeles Philadelphia Philadelphia Philadelphia Philadelphia
8 Seattle Los Angeles Seattle Seattle Seattle Seattle San Jose
9 San Jose Denver Denver Portland San Jose San Jose Seattle
10 Denver Portland Portland Denver Portland Denver Denver
11 Portland Miami Milwaukee Milwaukee Denver Portland Portland
12 Milwaukee Milwaukee Baltimore San Jose Milwaukee Minneapolis Minneapolis
13 Minneapolis Baltimore San Jose Minneapolis Minneapolis Milwaukee Salt Lake City
14 Salt Lake City San Diego Miami Baltimore Baltimore Salt Lake City Milwaukee
15 Baltimore San Jose Minneapolis Salt Lake City Salt Lake City Baltimore Houston
16 Miami New Orleans Salt Lake City Miami Miami Houston Miami
17 Houston Minneapolis San Diego Houston Houston Miami San Diego
18 San Diego Providence Houston Pittsburgh San Diego San Diego Baltimore
19 Phoenix Pittsburgh Hartford San Diego Pittsburgh Phoenix Las Vegas
20 Dallas Salt Lake City New Orleans Austin Phoenix Las Vegas Phoenix
21 Pittsburgh Austin Buffalo Hartford Austin Dallas Dallas
22 Austin Sacramento Providence Buffalo Dallas Austin San Antonio
23 Las Vegas Houston Columbus Columbus Buffalo Pittsburgh Austin
24 Buffalo Dallas Pittsburgh Dallas Columbus San Antonio Pittsburgh
25 Columbus Buffalo Dallas New Orleans San Antonio Columbus Cleveland
26 San Antonio Hartford Austin Phoenix Las Vegas Buffalo Columbus
27 Hartford Cleveland Sacramento Providence Hartford Cleveland Sacramento
28 Sacramento Charlotte Phoenix Sacramento Cleveland Sacramento Atlanta
29 Cleveland Columbus Cleveland San Antonio Sacramento Hartford Buffalo
30 New Orleans Cincinnati Charlotte Cleveland New Orleans Atlanta Hartford
31 Providence St. Louis San Antonio Las Vegas Providence St. Louis Detroit
32 Atlanta Kansas City Indianapolis Charlotte Atlanta New Orleans St. Louis
33 St. Louis Richmond Richmond Indianapolis St. Louis Providence Charlotte
34 Charlotte Tampa Cincinnati St. Louis Charlotte Detroit Providence
35 Indianapolis Indianapolis Louisville Louisville Louisville Charlotte Louisville
36 Detroit Orlando St. Louis Atlanta Indianapolis Louisville Tampa
37 Louisville San Antonio Las Vegas Cincinnati Cincinnati Indianapolis Indianapolis
38 Tampa Atlanta Kansas City Tampa Detroit Tampa Cincinnati
39 Cincinnati Phoenix Tampa Kansas City Tampa Cincinnati Orlando
40 Kansas City Louisville Atlanta Richmond Kansas City Kansas City New Orleans
41 Orlando Detroit Detroit Detroit Richmond Orlando Kansas City
42 Richmond Las Vegas Orlando Orlando Orlando Riverside Riverside
43 Nashville Virginia Beach Nashville Nashville Nashville Richmond Raleigh
44 Oklahoma City Nashville Oklahoma City Oklahoma City Oklahoma City Nashville Oklahoma City
45 Riverside Jacksonville Virginia Beach Riverside Riverside Oklahoma City Nashville
46 Virginia Beach Oklahoma City Riverside Virginia Beach Raleigh Raleigh Virginia Beach
47 Raleigh Raleigh Raleigh Raleigh Virginia Beach Virginia Beach Richmond
48 Jacksonville Riverside Jacksonville Jacksonville Jacksonville Jacksonville Jacksonville
49 Birmingham Birmingham Birmingham Birmingham Birmingham Birmingham Birmingham
6
Table 4: 1-Year Change in Weighted Accessibility
Rank Area 1-Year Change in
Weighted Accessibility
1 Kansas City +17.36%
2 Charlotte +10.81%
3 Austin +9.76%
4 Columbus +8.99%
5 San Francisco +8.72%
6 Orlando +7.88%
7 Las Vegas +7.68%
8 Phoenix +7.31%
9 Minneapolis +7.01%
10 Cincinnati +6.78%
11 New Orleans +6.76%
12 Denver +6.64%
13 San Jose +6.57%
14 Hartford +6.54%
15 Philadelphia +6.14%
16 Portland +6.01%
17 Indianapolis +5.87%
18 Milwaukee +5.62%
19 Dallas +5.41%
20 Washington +5.21%
21 Riverside +4.78%
22 Houston +4.63%
23 Raleigh +4.49%
24 Richmond +4.37%
25 Nashville +3.74%
26 San Diego +3.72%
27 Oklahoma City +3.69%
28 Detroit +3.66%
29 San Antonio +3.40%
30 St. Louis +3.33%
31 Virginia Beach +3.13%
32 Chicago +3.00%
33 Atlanta +2.76%
34 Salt Lake City +2.62%
35 Cleveland +2.33%
36 New York +1.91%
37 Birmingham +1.86%
38 Louisville +1.42%
39 Pittsburgh +1.25%
40 Providence +1.10%
41 Tampa +1.07%
42 Boston +1.01%
43 Buffalo -0.03%
44 Sacramento -0.69%
45 Baltimore -1.67%
46 Seattle -3.18%
47 Jacksonville -5.99%
48 Miami -6.47%
49 Los Angeles -6.64%
7
3 Discussion
This report builds on the work begun in Access Across America: Transit 2014 and continued in Access
Across America: Transit 2015 and Access Across America: Transit 2016, which introduced a new method-
ology and datasets to enable inter-metropolitan comparisons of accessibility by transit in a way that is
clearly understood and explainable, tracks with our experience and the available evidence, and incorpo-
rates the many factors that determine the usefulness of a transit system. Additionally, in 2015 the work
expanded its scope to become fully national – accessibility data are calculated for every census block
in the U.S.; data are aggregated and summarized within CBSAs for this report. In 2016, the uniform
methodology across years allowed for direct comparison, and the beginning of longitudinal analysis of
accessibility.
Not all jobs are the same. Some jobs are higher paying, some are lower skilled, and they exist in a
variety of industries. Given sufficient data, one could differentiate accessibility by breaking down jobs
by type and get different results. Accessibility to non-work locations (shopping, health care, education,
etc.) is also important. Regardless of trip purpose, people who experience higher accessibility tend to
travel shorter distances because origins and destinations are closer together.
But accessibility to jobs is not the only thing that people care about. If it were, cities would be
situated on a minimum amount of space so people could live immediately adjacent to their jobs, or
everyone would work from home. Measuring (and then valuing) accessibility to other opportunities and
considering the trade-off between accessibility and living space are central problems of urban economics,
regional science, and transportation and land-use planning. While being more accessible is generally
better, there are costs as well as bene ts associated with accessibility. If land is more valuable, its price
is higher, and purchasers can afford less. Streets in places with more activities are inherently more
crowded, and trips are less peaceful.
Accessibility is a function of both transportation networks and land use decisions, which has impor-
tant policy implications. There are two broad avenues to increasing accessibility: improving transporta-
tion systems, and altering land use patterns. Neither of these things can be easily shifted overnight, but
over time they do change—both through direct plans and action and through market forces.
It is important to recognize that aggregate metrics such as these are also affected simply by the size
of the areas being studied. For example, residents of central Minneapolis enjoy greater accessibility
than those of central Milwaukee, but the expansive Minneapolis–Saint Paul metropolitan area, which
is over four times as large in land area, includes far more suburban and exurban areas (with little or no
transit service) than does the Milwaukee area.
3.1 Transit Service Effects

Transit transportation improvements within existing infrastructure take the form of speed increases or
frequency increases. Speed improvements increase accessibility by making destinations reachable in less
time, but they are often difficult to achieve for transit vehicles operating in mixed traffic. Frequency
improvements reduce the average amount of time spent waiting for transit vehicles at stops, leaving
more time for travel toward valuable destinations. Speed and frequency are also linked: as average
speeds increase, a xed number of transit vehicles can serve the same route length with increasing
8
frequency.6 Improvements involving construction of new transit infrastructure (additional bus stops,
rail line extensions, or entirely new transit lines) also can heavily in uence accessibility by transit, by
providing transit-based access to job centers and destinations previously unreachable. New transit lines
which serve already-served areas do not expand the basin of reachable valuable destinations, but could
serve to increase service frequency in aggregate.
This evaluation re ects the impact of transit service frequency by making the assumption that all de-
parture times are equally valuable to users, and it includes full waiting times before each trip. This is an
important difference relative to earlier national evaluations of transit accessibility, which typically use a
single departure time and/or a xed wait time.7 This approach provides two important bene ts. First,
it avoids the assumptions that transit service with 30-minute frequency is as valuable as service with
10-minute frequency, and that users suffer no inconvenience from adjusting their personal schedules to
match transit schedules. Second, it allows more meaningful comparisons with accessibility evaluations
for other transportation modes such as driving,8 which typically use average speeds over time periods—
implicitly assuming an equal value of departure times. As a result of this methodological choice, the
accessibility results presented here are far more sensitive to service frequency effects than those of ear-
lier transit accessibility evaluations. Cities with robust transit coverage but low service frequency are
generally ranked lower than cities with comparable networks but higher frequencies.
3.2 Land Use Effects

Land use-based approaches to improving transit accessibility revolve around proximity and density for
both origins and destinations. Proximity to transit service is critical in overcoming both the low speed of
pedestrian access to and from stops and stations, and the decrease in motivation to make the walking trip
with greater distance. Density is the manifestation of the increasing value of more accessible locations.
As residential areas become denser, more residents experience the local accessibility; as employment
areas become denser, more jobs can be accessed through the same transit system.
Density is not determined solely by accessibility, however: land-use policies can restrict density
where it would otherwise be high or encourage density where it might otherwise be low. Perhaps the
most famous examples of such policies are Oregon’s urban growth boundary laws, which encourage
density by restricting the amount of land available for urban development, and the Height of Buildings
Act of 1910, which restricts density in the District of Columbia by limiting building heights. Other
notable areas with urban growth boundary laws in the U.S. include Seattle, San Jose, and Boulder;
additionally, Boston limits building heights near its Common central park. Between these most salient
examples lie a range of density-focused urban policies, typically embedded in zoning codes, which help
enable (and hinder) each city’s transit accessibility performance. In general, areas with higher residential
and employment density can achieve greater transit accessibility given the same level of transit service.
At lower accessibility thresholds, and especially at the 10-minute threshold, the job accessibility
experienced by a typical worker is determined primarily by local employment density and only secon-
darily, if at all, by transit service. With a 10-minute travel time budget, reaching a stop, waiting for a
vehicle, and walking to the destination after alighting leave little time available for actually traveling on
6
Walker (2012) provides a detailed and accessible exploration of transit service fundamentals.
7
e.g. Tomer et al. (2011), Ramsey and Bell (2014)
8
e.g. Levinson (2013), Levine et al. (2012)
9
a transit vehicle. It is likely that most jobs within this threshold are reached solely by walking and do
not involve a transit vehicle at all. The results presented in Table 3 for the 10-minute threshold look
much like a ranking by employment and residential density. As the travel time threshold increases, so
does the relative contribution of transit service and coverage to the rankings.
3.3 Comparisons With 2016 Data

This analysis uses the same tools and techniques as Access Across America: Transit 2016, and at the same
fully national scale. GTFS data availability has steadily improved, and now is sufficiently consistent
year-to-year in major metropolitan areas to allow meaningful comparisons of transit accessibility, and to
inform discussions of transit coverage and land use changes. As detailed in Access Across America: Tran-
sit 2017, this report implements the most recent update to the U.S. Census LEHD dataset, LEHD
2015. Access Across America: Transit 2015 relied on LEHD 2013 data, while Access Across America:
Transit 2016 relied on LEHD 2014 data. This update of datasource, in combination with increased
GTFS consistency, allows observation of signi cant land-use changes (namely, job growth and mixed-
use densi cation in certain metropolitan areas), and the impact of land-use on how accessible a city
will turn out to be. The precise disentanglement of accessibility changes due to land-use mix or tran-
sit improvements (and determining relative percentage apportionment) requires a signi cant increase
in the amount of accessibility computations. However, absent signi cant restructuring of an entire
transit system (e.g. Houston, TX ca. 2015), or the addition of new corridor lines (e.g. Metro Transit
adding the Green Line LRT in the Twin Cities, MN in 2014), it is reasonable to suggest a majority of
accessibility changes are due to evolving land use patterns.
3.4 Conclusions
The cities that make up the top 10 transit accessibility ranks all exhibit a combination of high density
land use and fast, frequent transit service. However, there is still signi cant variation within this group.
In New York, San Francisco, Washington, and Chicago, fast heavy rail systems connect both urban
and suburban areas with a highly employment-dense core. It is instructive to compare these cities to
Atlanta, which has a similar, but smaller, rail system but a much more decentralized job and population
distribution, and lower accessibility. Seattle and Denver both have rapidly expanding light rail systems,
supported by extensive and frequent bus networks. Though Portland is famous for its streetcar service,
this covers only a small part of the city, and operates mostly in mixed traffic with very little access
to proprietary right-of-way, limiting its service speed. Its urban growth boundary, combined with
frequent bus service throughout core areas and light rail connections to suburban areas, likely plays a
more important role in providing high accessibility: by encouraging both residents and employers to
locate in parts of the city already well served by transit, each new resident enjoys high accessibility but
imposes only a small marginal burden on the transit system’s existing resources.
Additionally, the expanded scope of this report’s focus toward analyzing accessibility for every census
block in the U.S. affords a look at what impact public transit has on a national scale. The vast majority
of the U.S. land mass is quite sparsely-populated outside of metropolitan areas, and the contained
metropolitan areas are in many cases very far apart. Also, the type of transit service included in the
analysis is strictly limited to public transit, most commonly found in urban areas—inter-city bus and
10
rail services, such as Megabus, Greyhound, or Jefferson, and Amtrak, respectively, are not included.
Further, such services operate on time-scales greater than the travel times involved in this analysis.
Given that mostly urban-centric systems are included, only a very small geographical area of the country
enjoys mass transit services, and thus the total area experiencing transit accessibility bene ts is quite
small.
Transportation and land use systems are both dynamic, and this report presents the third annual
national evaluation, following those detailed in Access Across America: Transit 2015 and Access Across
America: Transit 2016. In constantly-evolving systems like these, it is critical to monitor changes over
time. A city that adopts a goal of increasing transit accessibility should be evaluated based on how effec-
tively it advances that goal relative to a baseline. Access Across America: Transit 2014 served as a starting
framework for inter-city accessibility evaluation, and Access Across America: Transit 2015 expanded
the scope and data availability to allow direct year-to-year comparisons, which began in Access Across
America: 2016 ; this report adds 2017 transit accessibility data, and continues the process of monitor-
ing and comparing how accessibility in these metropolitan areas evolves in response to transportation
investments and land use decisions.
11
4 Metropolitan Area Data and Maps
The following pages present summary accessibility data and maps for each of the 49 included metropoli-
tan areas. Metropolitan areas are presented in alphabetical order. The maps show 30-minute accessi-
bility values at the Census block level, averaged between 7:00 and 9:00 AM. On the data summary
pages, two different chart scales are used to accommodate the wide range of accessibility values across
metropolitan areas. All charts using the same scale are plotted in the same color.
12
Atlanta
Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta, GA
Rank by Weighted Accessibility 32

Rank by Total Employment 8
Rank by 1-Year Change in Weighted Accessibility 33
1-Year Change in Weighted Accessibility +2.76%
1-Year Change in Weighted Accessibility Rank 0
Total Jobs 2,511,895
Average Job Density (per km2 ) 116
Total Workers 2,416,397
Average Worker Density (per km2 ) 112
Job and worker totals are based on LEHD estimates and may not match other sources.
Job Accessibility by Travel Time Threshold
1-Year Change in Weighted Accessibility by Travel Time Threshold
13
Atlanta
Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta, GA
Transit Schedules Included

Agency Dates
Atlanta Streetcar March 25, 2016 – December 31, 2016
Atlantic Station Shuttle January 1, 2013 – December 31, 2013
Buc Shuttle January 1, 2013 – December 31, 2013
Cherokee Area Transportation System (CATS) January 1, 2013 – December 31, 2013
Cliff Shuttles/Emory University January 1, 2013 – December 31, 2013
CobbLinc September 30, 2016 – September 30, 2017
GRTA Xpress May 10, 2014 – June 10, 2015
Georgia Tech Trolley & Stinger Shuttles August 12, 2013 – May 3, 2014
Gwinnett County Transit June 12, 2014 – December 31, 2014
Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority December 10, 2016 – April 16, 2017
14
15
Austin
Austin-Round Rock-San Marcos, TX

1-Year Change in Weighted Accessibility Rank +1
Total Jobs 956,883
Total Workers 917,901
16
Austin
Austin-Round Rock-San Marcos, TX

Agency Dates
CapMetro June 7, 2015 – August 22, 2015
17
18
Baltimore
Baltimore-Towson, MD

1-Year Change in Weighted Accessibility -1.67%
1-Year Change in Weighted Accessibility Rank -1
19
Baltimore
Baltimore-Towson, MD

Agency Dates
Annapolis Transit January 1, 2015 – December 31, 2015
BWI Thurgood Marshall Airport January 1, 2016 – December 31, 2017
Carroll Transit System January 1, 2016 – January 1, 2018
Charm City Circulator May 1, 2016 – December 30, 2018
Delmarva Community Transit August 1, 2014 – December 31, 2017
Harford Transit LINK October 1, 2015 – December 31, 2017
MTA Office of Local Transit Support August 28, 2016 – February 4, 2017
Maryland Transit Administration February 5, 2017 – September 2, 2017
Queen Anne’s County Ride March 8, 2016 – December 31, 2017
Rabbit Transit November 30, 2016 – December 1, 2017
Regional Transportation Agency of Central Maryland June 1, 2016 – March 1, 2018
WMATA February 22, 2017 – August 20, 2017
20
21
Birmingham
Birmingham-Hoover, AL

Total Jobs 508,196
22
Birmingham
Birmingham-Hoover, AL

Agency Dates
Birmingham Jefferson County Transit Authority February 1, 2017 – December 31, 2018
23
24
Boston
Boston-Cambridge-Quincy, MA-NH

25
Boston
Boston-Cambridge-Quincy, MA-NH

Agency Dates
Bloom Bus January 2, 2015 – January 2, 2016
Boston Harbor Islands National and State Park May 7, 2016 – October 10, 2016
Brockton Area Transit Authority April 21, 2014 – January 8, 2020
Cape Ann Transportation January 1, 2015 – January 1, 2018
Cape Cod Regional Transit Authority (CCRTA) September 6, 2016 – June 23, 2017
DATTCO January 2, 2015 – January 2, 2016
Lexpress Lexington MA October 1, 2014 – June 30, 2016
Lowell Regional Transit Authority January 1, 2015 – January 1, 2018
MBTA January 23, 2017 – March 24, 2017
Massport January 23, 2017 – March 24, 2017
Merrimack Valley Regional Transit Authority January 1, 2015 – January 1, 2018
MetroWest Regional Transit Authority September 24, 2013 – September 23, 2020
Montachusett Regional Transit Authority January 1, 2015 – May 31, 2018
Plymouth & Brockton Street Railway Co. June 28, 2014 – June 28, 2015
The Greater Attleboro Taunton Regional Transit Authority January 1, 2016 – January 1, 2017
26
27
Buffalo
Buffalo-Niagara Falls, NY

Total Jobs 547,851
28
Buffalo
Buffalo-Niagara Falls, NY

Agency Dates
NFTA - Metro November 26, 2016 – March 4, 2017
29
30
Charlotte
Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, NC-SC

Total Jobs 971,585
31
Charlotte
Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, NC-SC

Agency Dates
Charlotte Area Transit System September 8, 2016 – February 5, 2017
32
33
Chicago
Chicago-Joliet-Naperville, IL-IN-WI

34
Chicago
Chicago-Joliet-Naperville, IL-IN-WI

Agency Dates
Chicago Transit Authority January 17, 2017 – March 31, 2017
Metra January 1, 2017 – September 3, 2017
PACE January 13, 2017 – March 24, 2017
35
36
Cincinnati
Cincinnati-Middletown, OH-KY-IN

37
Cincinnati
Cincinnati-Middletown, OH-KY-IN

Agency Dates
Southwest Ohio Regional Transit Authority December 4, 2016 – May 27, 2017
Transit Authority of Northern Kentucky October 27, 2016 – May 31, 2017
38
39
Cleveland
Cleveland-Elyria-Mentor, OH

40
Cleveland
Cleveland-Elyria-Mentor, OH

Agency Dates
Cuyahoga Valley Scenic Railroad January 21, 2017 – October 29, 2017
Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority September 11, 2016 – March 11, 2017
Laketran January 1, 2016 – December 1, 2018
41
42
Columbus
Columbus, OH

Total Jobs 987,881
43
Columbus
Columbus, OH

Agency Dates
Central Ohio Transit Authority January 2, 2017 – September 3, 2017
44
45
Dallas
Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX

46
Dallas
Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX

Agency Dates
Dallas Area Rapid Transit October 24, 2016 – March 12, 2017
Fort Worth Transportation Authority May 22, 2016 – September 24, 2016
47
48
Denver
Denver-Aurora-Broomfield, CO

49
Denver
Denver-Aurora-Broomfield, CO

Agency Dates
Regional Transportation District January 15, 2017 – May 20, 2017
50
51
Detroit
Detroit-Warren-Livonia, MI

52
Detroit
Detroit-Warren-Livonia, MI

Agency Dates
Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority May 1, 2016 – January 28, 2017
Detroit Department of Transportation September 1, 2016 – January 27, 2017
SMART January 2, 2017 – April 2, 2017
53
54
Hartford
Hartford-West Hartford-East Hartford, CT

Total Jobs 637,363
55
Hartford
Hartford-West Hartford-East Hartford, CT

Agency Dates
9 Town Transit September 1, 2016 – September 1, 2017
CTTransit- Hartford December 4, 2016 – May 9, 2017
CTTransit- New Britain-Bristol July 12, 2015 – June 30, 2017
CTTransit- Waterbury June 27, 2016 – September 23, 2017
PVTA August 24, 2016 – September 4, 2017
Shore Line East November 5, 2016 – May 1, 2017
56
57
Houston
Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown, TX

58
Houston
Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown, TX

Agency Dates
Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County August 21, 2016 – February 11, 2017
59
60
Indianapolis
Indianapolis-Carmel, IN

Total Jobs 976,644
61
Indianapolis
Indianapolis-Carmel, IN

Agency Dates
IndyGo August 31, 2016 – February 11, 2017
62
63
Jacksonville
Jacksonville, FL

Total Jobs 635,773
64
Jacksonville
Jacksonville, FL

Agency Dates
Jacksonville Transportation Authority December 5, 2016 – April 2, 2017
Sunshine Bus Company July 1, 2015 – July 1, 2017
65
66
Kansas City
Kansas City, MO-KS

67
Kansas City
Kansas City, MO-KS

Agency Dates
KCATA January 3, 2017 – April 2, 2017
The JO January 1, 2013 – May 31, 2019
68
69
Las Vegas
Las Vegas-Paradise, NV

Total Jobs 911,758
70
Las Vegas
Las Vegas-Paradise, NV

Agency Dates
Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada November 6, 2016 – December 30, 2017
71
72
Los Angeles
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, CA

73
Los Angeles
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, CA

Agency Dates
Anaheim Resort Transportation October 2, 2016 – January 1, 2018
Big Blue Bus August 21, 2016 – June 10, 2017
Culver CityBus December 21, 2016 – May 14, 2017
Duarte Transit January 1, 2016 – December 31, 2018
Eastern Sierra Transit Authority January 2, 2015 – December 31, 2018
Foothill Transit October 30, 2016 – July 1, 2017
Glendale Beeline October 19, 2015 – November 1, 2016
Irvine Shuttle June 10, 2013 – December 31, 2015
Kern Transit February 29, 2016 – January 1, 2018
LADOT May 1, 2016 – December 25, 2017
Laguna Beach Transit January 1, 2013 – January 1, 2018
Long Beach Transit June 19, 2016 – February 11, 2017
Metro - Los Angeles - Bus December 11, 2016 – June 24, 2017
Metro - Los Angeles - Rail January 25, 2017 – February 8, 2017
Metrolink Trains April 2, 2016 – December 31, 2017
OMNITRANS January 2, 2017 – September 3, 2017
Orange County Transportation Authority June 12, 2016 – June 10, 2017
Palos Verdes Peninsula Transit Authority January 2, 2015 – January 1, 2018
Riverside Transit Agency October 3, 2016 – May 13, 2017
Spirit Bus January 1, 2016 – January 1, 2018
Thousand Oaks Transit January 1, 2016 – January 1, 2018
Torrance Transit System January 8, 2017 – July 9, 2017
Ventura County Transportation Commission September 1, 2016 – January 1, 2018
74
75
Louisville
Louisville/Jefferson County, KY-IN

Total Jobs 645,913
76
Louisville
Louisville/Jefferson County, KY-IN

Agency Dates
Transit Authority of River City January 18, 2017 – June 3, 2017
77
78
Miami
Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Pompano Beach, FL

79
Miami
Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Pompano Beach, FL

Agency Dates
Broward County Transit January 15, 2017 – June 17, 2017
Miami-Dade Transit November 20, 2016 – September 16, 2017
Palm Tran January 8, 2017 – May 13, 2017
SFRTA/Tri-Rail April 20, 2012 – December 31, 2024
80
81
Milwaukee
Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis, WI

Total Jobs 845,543
82
Milwaukee
Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis, WI

Agency Dates
Milwaukee County Transit System January 22, 2017 – March 26, 2017
Waukesha County Transit November 1, 2014 – June 8, 2016
83
84
Minneapolis
Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI

85
Minneapolis
Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI

Agency Dates
Airport (MAC) March 11, 2017 – June 16, 2017
MVTA November 7, 2016 – February 17, 2017
Maple Grove March 13, 2017 – June 16, 2017
Metro August 1, 2016 – November 18, 2016
Metro Bus November 24, 2016 – January 14, 2017
Metro Transit March 11, 2017 – June 16, 2017
Plymouth March 13, 2017 – June 16, 2017
Prior Lake January 12, 2015 – March 6, 2015
Scott County January 12, 2015 – March 6, 2015
SouthWest Transit March 13, 2017 – June 16, 2017
St. Cloud Link March 11, 2017 – June 16, 2017
University of Minnesota March 11, 2017 – June 16, 2017
86
87
Nashville
Nashville-Davidson–Murfreesboro–Franklin, TN

Total Jobs 867,546
88
Nashville
Nashville-Davidson–Murfreesboro–Franklin, TN

Agency Dates
Nashville Metropolitan Transit Authority September 25, 2016 – September 30, 2017
89
90
New Orleans
New Orleans-Metairie-Kenner, LA

Total Jobs 540,982
91
New Orleans
New Orleans-Metairie-Kenner, LA

Agency Dates
New Orleans RTA January 1, 2017 – May 27, 2017
92
93
New York
New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-PA

94
New York
New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-PA

Agency Dates
CTTransit- Stamford December 4, 2016 – March 25, 2017
JFK Airtrain July 21, 2015 – July 9, 2016
Long Island Rail Road November 14, 2016 – May 21, 2017
MTA Bus Company January 8, 2017 – April 8, 2017
MTA New York City Transit November 6, 2016 – December 31, 2017
MTA New York City Transit - Bronx January 7, 2017 – April 1, 2017
MTA New York City Transit - Brooklyn January 7, 2017 – April 1, 2017
MTA New York City Transit - Manhattan January 7, 2017 – April 1, 2017
MTA New York City Transit - Queens January 7, 2017 – April 1, 2017
MTA New York City Transit - Staten Island January 8, 2017 – April 1, 2017
Metro-North Railroad October 12, 2016 – April 1, 2017
NJ TRANSIT BUS December 28, 2016 – June 25, 2017
NJ TRANSIT RAIL December 20, 2016 – June 17, 2017
NY Waterway November 10, 2015 – April 3, 2016
Nassau Inter-County Express January 15, 2017 – April 8, 2017
New York City Department of Transportation April 30, 2014 – December 31, 2021
Port Authority Trans-Hudson Corporation January 1, 2017 – January 1, 2018
Port Authority of NY and NJ February 8, 2017 – January 1, 2018
Seastreak June 15, 2015 – July 20, 2017
Shore Line East November 5, 2016 – May 1, 2017
Suffolk County Transit January 1, 2015 – December 31, 2017
Sussex County Skylands Ride April 1, 2012 – January 2, 2019
Westchester County Bee-Line System June 20, 2016 – March 19, 2017
95
96
Oklahoma City
Oklahoma City, OK

Total Jobs 609,953
97
Oklahoma City
Oklahoma City, OK

Agency Dates
Embark July 31, 2016 – July 30, 2017
98
99
Orlando
Orlando-Kissimmee-Sanford, FL

100
Orlando
Orlando-Kissimmee-Sanford, FL

Agency Dates
Central Florida Regional Transit Authority January 10, 2017 – April 29, 2017
Florida Department of Transportation December 21, 2015 – December 31, 2017
Polk County Transit Services July 3, 2015 – December 31, 2015
Winter Haven Area Transit July 3, 2015 – December 31, 2015
101
102
Philadelphia
Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD

103
Philadelphia
Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD

Agency Dates
Cecil Transit September 1, 2015 – September 19, 2017
Dart First State December 11, 2016 – May 21, 2017
Harford Transit LINK October 1, 2015 – December 31, 2017
NJ TRANSIT BUS December 28, 2016 – June 25, 2017
NJ TRANSIT RAIL December 20, 2016 – June 17, 2017
Port Authority Transit Corporation July 2, 2015 – November 29, 2016
SEPTA-bus September 4, 2016 – February 25, 2017
SEPTA-rail December 11, 2016 – January 28, 2017
104
105
Phoenix
Phoenix-Mesa-Glendale, AZ

106
Phoenix
Phoenix-Mesa-Glendale, AZ

Agency Dates
Valley Metro September 20, 2016 – April 23, 2017
107
108
Pittsburgh
Pittsburgh, PA

109
Pittsburgh
Pittsburgh, PA

Agency Dates
Port Authority of Allegheny County November 20, 2016 – March 18, 2017
110
111
Portland
Portland-Vancouver-Hillsboro, OR-WA

112
Portland
Portland-Vancouver-Hillsboro, OR-WA

Agency Dates
Blue Star Bus January 1, 2013 – January 1, 2018
C-TRAN December 30, 2016 – September 30, 2017
CCC Xpress January 9, 2017 – June 14, 2017
Canby Area Transit January 1, 2014 – January 1, 2018
Caravan Airport Transportation January 1, 2015 – January 1, 2018
Cascades POINT January 1, 2015 – January 1, 2017
Central Oregon Breeze January 1, 2014 – June 1, 2018
Cherriots March 4, 2012 – July 1, 2023
City2City Shuttle January 1, 2015 – January 1, 2018
Columbia Area Transit January 1, 2012 – January 1, 2018
Columbia County Rider January 1, 2012 – January 1, 2017
Columbia Gorge Express May 27, 2016 – September 25, 2016
NorthWest POINT October 24, 2016 – January 1, 2018
Portland Aerial Tram September 4, 2016 – March 4, 2017
Portland Streetcar September 12, 2016 – March 4, 2017
Ride Connection January 1, 2015 – January 1, 2018
Sandy Area Metro December 1, 2016 – December 1, 2018
Skamania County Public Transit (Gorge WET Bus) January 1, 2015 – January 1, 2018
South Clackamas Transportation District November 1, 2015 – January 1, 2018
South Metro Area Regional Transit January 1, 2013 – January 1, 2018
Sunset Empire Transportation District July 1, 2015 – January 1, 2018
Swan Island TMA January 1, 2013 – January 1, 2018
Tillamook County Transportation District January 1, 2012 – January 1, 2018
TriMet January 15, 2017 – June 3, 2017
Valley Retriever January 1, 2013 – January 1, 2018
Washington Park Shuttle May 1, 2016 – October 31, 2017
Yamhill County Transit Area January 1, 2015 – January 1, 2018
113
114
Providence
Providence-New Bedford-Fall River, RI-MA

Total Jobs 682,358
115
Providence
Providence-New Bedford-Fall River, RI-MA

Agency Dates
Block Island Ferry December 19, 2016 – December 31, 2017
Bloom Bus January 2, 2015 – January 2, 2016
Brockton Area Transit Authority April 21, 2014 – January 8, 2020
Cuttyhunk Ferry Co. October 17, 2016 – April 13, 2018
DATTCO January 2, 2015 – January 2, 2016
MBTA January 23, 2017 – March 24, 2017
MetroWest Regional Transit Authority September 24, 2013 – September 23, 2020
Plymouth & Brockton Street Railway Co. June 28, 2014 – June 28, 2015
Rhode Island Public Transit Authority December 24, 2016 – June 16, 2017
Seastreak June 15, 2015 – July 20, 2017
Southeastern Regional Transit Authority January 1, 2015 – January 1, 2018
The Greater Attleboro Taunton Regional Transit Authority January 1, 2016 – January 1, 2017
Vineyard Fast Ferry May 27, 2016 – October 10, 2016
116
117
Raleigh
Raleigh-Cary, NC

Total Jobs 645,722
118
Raleigh
Raleigh-Cary, NC

Agency Dates
GoCary January 1, 2015 – December 31, 2018
GoDurham January 1, 2014 – January 1, 2018
GoRaleigh December 25, 2016 – December 31, 2018
GoTriangle January 1, 2014 – December 31, 2018
NCSU Wolfline January 9, 2017 – September 6, 2017
119
120
Richmond
Richmond, VA

Total Jobs 639,299
121
Richmond
Richmond, VA

Agency Dates
GRTC Transit System May 14, 2017 – August 19, 2017
122
123
Riverside
Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA

124
Riverside
Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA

Agency Dates
Beaumont Transit System January 1, 2013 – January 1, 2018
Corona Cruiser January 1, 2013 – January 1, 2018
Foothill Transit October 30, 2016 – July 1, 2017
Mountain Transit January 1, 2014 – January 1, 2018
OMNITRANS January 2, 2017 – September 3, 2017
Orange County Transportation Authority June 12, 2016 – June 10, 2017
Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency January 1, 2013 – January 1, 2018
Sunline Transit Agency September 4, 2016 – March 4, 2017
Victor Valley Transit Authority January 1, 2016 – January 1, 2018
125
126
Sacramento
Sacramento–Arden-Arcade–Roseville, CA

Total Jobs 903,212
127
Sacramento
Sacramento–Arden-Arcade–Roseville, CA

Agency Dates
Amador Transit January 1, 2012 – January 1, 2018
BlueGo September 5, 2015 – January 1, 2017
Capitol Corridor August 22, 2016 – May 29, 2017
El Dorado Transit January 1, 2015 – January 1, 2018
Fairfield and Suisun Transit January 1, 2013 – January 1, 2018
Mountain Line January 1, 2014 – January 1, 2017
Nevada County Gold Country Stage July 5, 2016 – December 31, 2017
Night Rider (Airport Minibus) July 1, 2015 – September 6, 2015
Rio Vista Delta Breeze February 1, 2017 – December 31, 2018
Roseville Transit August 8, 2016 – December 31, 2017
Sacramento Regional Transit January 1, 2017 – June 17, 2017
San Joaquin Regional Transit District (RTD) August 7, 2016 – January 28, 2017
Tahoe Area Regional Transit December 3, 2015 – March 27, 2016
Tahoe Truckee Area Regional Transit March 14, 2016 – March 1, 2017
Unitrans (Davis) January 8, 2017 – June 10, 2017
Verde Lynx January 1, 2013 – January 1, 2017
Yolo County Transportation District September 27, 2016 – February 1, 2017
Yuba-Sutter Transit January 1, 2013 – January 1, 2018
128
129
Salt Lake City
Salt Lake City, UT

Total Jobs 682,296
130
Salt Lake City
Salt Lake City, UT

Agency Dates
Elevated Transit November 20, 2014 – January 1, 2018
Utah Transit Authority December 18, 2016 – August 12, 2017
131
132
San Antonio
San Antonio-New Braunfels, TX

Total Jobs 949,296
133
San Antonio
San Antonio-New Braunfels, TX

Agency Dates
VIA Metropolitan Transit January 9, 2017 – August 27, 2017
134
135
San Diego
San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos, CA

136
San Diego
San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos, CA

Agency Dates
MTS September 4, 2016 – June 10, 2017
North County Transit District October 2, 2016 – April 2, 2017
San Diego International Airport September 12, 2016 – January 28, 2017
137
138
San Francisco
San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA

139
San Francisco
San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA

Agency Dates
AC Transit December 17, 2016 – March 18, 2017
ACE Altamont Corridor Express March 11, 2013 – May 19, 2019
Bay Area Rapid Transit March 28, 2016 – January 1, 2018
Bear Transit - UC Berkeley Shuttle January 7, 2015 – January 31, 2018
Caltrain October 5, 2014 – October 5, 2024
County Connection November 20, 2016 – June 10, 2017
Fairfield and Suisun Transit January 1, 2013 – January 1, 2018
Golden Gate Transit December 11, 2016 – March 11, 2017
Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority August 30, 2016 – March 1, 2017
Marin Transit December 11, 2016 – June 11, 2017
Modesto Area Express January 1, 2014 – July 1, 2018
Rio Vista Delta Breeze February 1, 2017 – December 31, 2018
SamTrans January 22, 2017 – June 10, 2017
San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency August 13, 2016 – February 24, 2017
SolTrans December 1, 2014 – December 31, 2018
Sonoma County Transit January 4, 2016 – January 1, 2018
Stanford Marguerite Shuttle December 20, 2016 – March 31, 2017
VTA April 11, 2016 – July 3, 2016
WestCat (Western Contra Costa) June 1, 2016 – June 9, 2017
Wheels Bus January 23, 2016 – December 1, 2016
140
141
San Jose
San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA

142
San Jose
San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA

Agency Dates
AC Transit December 17, 2016 – March 18, 2017
ACE Altamont Corridor Express March 11, 2013 – May 19, 2019
Caltrain October 5, 2014 – October 5, 2024
MVgo Mountain View May 1, 2016 – January 1, 2018
SamTrans January 22, 2017 – June 10, 2017
San Benito County Express January 1, 2014 – January 1, 2018
Santa Cruz Metro November 22, 2016 – March 8, 2017
Stanford Marguerite Shuttle December 20, 2016 – March 31, 2017
VTA April 11, 2016 – July 3, 2016
143
144
Seattle
Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA

145
Seattle
Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA

Agency Dates
City of Seattle September 1, 2016 – March 10, 2017
Community Transit November 7, 2016 – March 10, 2017
Everett Transit January 10, 2017 – March 18, 2017
Intercity Transit December 14, 2016 – December 14, 2021
Island Transit August 20, 2014 – May 31, 2015
Kingcounty Marine Divison November 29, 2016 – June 16, 2017
Kitsap Transit July 1, 2016 – August 30, 2017
Metro Transit September 22, 2016 – March 10, 2017
Pierce Transit September 11, 2016 – March 11, 2017
Seattle Children’s Hospital Shuttle March 20, 2016 – December 31, 2017
Sound Transit September 10, 2016 – September 23, 2017
Washington State Ferries November 3, 2016 – April 1, 2017
146
147
St. Louis
St. Louis, MO-IL

148
St. Louis
St. Louis, MO-IL

Agency Dates
JeffCo Express May 1, 2015 – January 1, 2018
Metro St. Louis November 28, 2016 – June 11, 2017
149
150
Tampa
Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL

151
Tampa
Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL

Agency Dates
Hillsborough Area Regional Transit December 4, 2016 – July 15, 2017
Manatee County Area Transit November 12, 2016 – April 15, 2018
PSTA June 5, 2016 – February 4, 2017
Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority October 9, 2016 – June 3, 2017
The Hernando Express January 1, 2015 – January 1, 2017
152
153
Virginia Beach
Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, VA-NC

Total Jobs 706,028
154
Virginia Beach
Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, VA-NC

Agency Dates
Hampton Roads Transit (HRT) October 1, 2016 – April 30, 2017
WATA November 17, 2016 – June 17, 2017
155
156
Washington
Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV

157
Washington
Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV

Agency Dates
Alexandria Transit Company (DASH) November 27, 2016 – February 25, 2017
Arlington Transit January 3, 2017 – December 31, 2018
Calvert County Public Transportation August 1, 2014 – December 31, 2017
Charles County VanGo January 1, 2014 – December 31, 2017
DC Circulator February 22, 2017 – August 20, 2017
Fairfax Connector August 10, 2016 – September 1, 2017
Montgomery County MD Ride On January 8, 2017 – September 16, 2017
Potomac and Rappahannock Transportation Commission February 23, 2017 – July 2, 2017
Regional Transportation Agency of Central Maryland June 1, 2016 – March 1, 2018
St. Mary’s Transit System August 1, 2014 – December 31, 2017
The Bus of Prince George’s County September 25, 2016 – December 31, 2017
Virginia Railway Express March 6, 2017 – June 14, 2017
WMATA February 22, 2017 – August 20, 2017
158
159
References
Geurs, K. and Van Eck, J. (2001). Accessibility measures: Review and applications. Technical Report
408505 006, National Institute of Public Health and the Environment.
Handy, S. L. and Niemeier, D. A. (1997). Measuring accessibility: An exploration of issues and alter-
natives. Environment and planning A, 29(7):1175–1194.
Hansen, W. (1959). How accessibility shapes land use. Journal of the American Institute of Planners,
25(2):73–76.
Levine, J., Grengs, J., Shen, Q., and Shen, Q. (2012). Does accessibility require density or speed? A
comparison of fast versus close in getting where you want to go in U.S. metropolitan regions. Journal
of the American Planning Association, 78(2):157–172.
Levinson, D. M. (2013). Access across America. Technical Report CTS 13-20, Univer-
sity of Minnesota Center for Transportation Studies, http://www.cts.umn.edu/Publications/
ResearchReports/pdfdownload.pl?id=2334.
McKenzie, B. (2014). Modes less traveled — bicycling and walking to work in the United States:
2008–2012. Technical Report ACS-25, U.S. Census Bureau.
Ramsey, K. and Bell, A. (2014). The smart location database: A nationwide data resource characterizing
the built environment and destination accessibility at the neighborhood scalement and destination
accessibility at the neighborhood scale. Cityscape: A Journal of Policy Development and Research,
16(2).
Tomer, A., Kneebone, E., Puentes, R., and Berube, A. (2011). Missed opportunity:
Transit and jobs in metropolitan america. Technical report, Brookings Institution,
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/reports/2011/5/12%20jobs%20and%
20transit/0512_jobs_transit.pdf.
Walker, J. (2012). Human Transit. Island Press.
160

Access Across America: Transit 2017

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Access Across America: Transit 2017

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Access Across America: Transit 2017

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Technical Report Documentation Page

1. Report No. 2. 3. Recipients Accession No.

7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No.

• Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department

• California Department of Transportation

• District Department of Transportation

• Federal Highway Administration

• Florida Department of Transportation

• Iowa Department of Transportation

• Maryland Department of Transportation

• Minnesota Department of Transportation

• North Carolina Department of Transportation

• Tennessee Department of Transportation

• Virginia Department of Transportation

• Washington State Department of Transportation

2 Accessibility to Jobs by Transit 3

4 Metropolitan Area Data and Maps 12

2.1 Metropolitan Area Rankings

2.2 Longitudinal Analyses

Center for Transportation Studies

3.1 Transit Service Effects

3.2 Land Use Effects

3.3 Comparisons With 2016 Data

Rank by Weighted Accessibility 32

Job Accessibility by Travel Time Threshold

1-Year Change in Weighted Accessibility by Travel Time Threshold

Transit Schedules Included

Rank by Weighted Accessibility 22

Job Accessibility by Travel Time Threshold

1-Year Change in Weighted Accessibility by Travel Time Threshold

Transit Schedules Included

Rank by Weighted Accessibility 15

Job Accessibility by Travel Time Threshold

1-Year Change in Weighted Accessibility by Travel Time Threshold

Transit Schedules Included

Rank by Weighted Accessibility 49

Job Accessibility by Travel Time Threshold

1-Year Change in Weighted Accessibility by Travel Time Threshold

Transit Schedules Included

Rank by Weighted Accessibility 5

Job Accessibility by Travel Time Threshold

1-Year Change in Weighted Accessibility by Travel Time Threshold

Transit Schedules Included

Rank by Weighted Accessibility 24

Job Accessibility by Travel Time Threshold

1-Year Change in Weighted Accessibility by Travel Time Threshold

Transit Schedules Included

Rank by Weighted Accessibility 34

Job Accessibility by Travel Time Threshold

1-Year Change in Weighted Accessibility by Travel Time Threshold

Transit Schedules Included

Rank by Weighted Accessibility 3

Job Accessibility by Travel Time Threshold

1-Year Change in Weighted Accessibility by Travel Time Threshold

Transit Schedules Included

Rank by Weighted Accessibility 39

Job Accessibility by Travel Time Threshold

1-Year Change in Weighted Accessibility by Travel Time Threshold

Transit Schedules Included

Rank by Weighted Accessibility 29