# Presentation: 714888

## Predicted vs. Actual Costs and Ridership of New Starts Projects

***presented by***
**Steve Lewis-Workman**
**Federal Transit Administration – Office of Planning and Environment**
**Transportation Research Board**
**Session 371**
**January 14, 2008**

**Predicted vs. Actual Costs and Ridership of New Starts Projects**

***Predicted vs. Actual Ridership ***

## Purpose

**Compare ridership performance vs. predictions;**
**Consider effectiveness of procedures and technical methods used to support decision-making; and**
**“****Fill the gap” between previous study and *****Before and After Studies***** (49 USC 5309(g)(2)(C)).**
***NOTE - Projects that may have benefited from recent FTA quality control efforts (Summit, enhanced technical reviews, etc.) have not yet opened except for Charlotte.***

- TRB 2008 Session 371     						Federal Transit Administration

## Ridership Data Assembled

**Forecast and actual**
**Average weekday project boardings, or**
**Average weekday project boardings and alightings**

- TRB 2008 Session 371     						Federal Transit Administration

## Comparisons at Key Decision Points

**Selection of Locally Preferred Alternative or Entry to Preliminary Engineering (PE)**
** ****Major Investment Studies, Alternatives Analysis (AA) reports, AA/DEIS, or PE applications**
**Record of Decision or Finding of No Significant Impact**
**FEIS or Environmental Assessment**
**Actual ridership**
**Most recent available data from transit agency**

- TRB 2008 Session 371     						Federal Transit Administration

## Adjusting to the Forecast Year

**Forecast years (2010, 2015, and 2020)**
**Adjusted by Average Annual System-wide Transit Ridership Growth (1996-2006)**
**From NTD Data**
**Different for each Project**
**Limited to 3% per year**
**Same method as 2003 study**

- TRB 2008 Session 371     						Federal Transit Administration

## Review by Project Sponsors

**Project summaries prepared**
**Sent to project sponsors for review and comment**
**Data updated as appropriate**

- TRB 2008 Session 371     						Federal Transit Administration

## Slide 7

| PROJECTS INCLUDED IN RIDERSHIP ANALYSIS | AA/DEIS/MIS YEAR | OPENING YEAR | FORECAST YEAR |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Memphis Medical Center | 1997 | 2004 | 2020 |
| NJ Newark Elizabeth MOS 1 | 1997 | 2006 | 2015 |
| Tren Urbano | 1995 | 2005 | 2010 |
| South Florida Tri-Rail | 1998 | 2007 | 2015 |
| BART to SFO | 1995 | 2003 | 2010 |
| Pittsburgh Stage II LRT | 1996 | 2004 | 2005 |
| South Boston Piers Phase 1 | 1992 | 2004 | 2010 |
| Washington Largo | 1996 | 2004 | 2020 |
| NJ Hudson Bergen MOS 1&2 | 1992 | 2003 | 2010 |
| Baltimore Central Double Track | 2000 | 2006 | 2020 |
| San Diego Mission Valley East | 1997 | 2005 | 2015 |
| Sacramento South Phase 1 | 1996 | 2003 | 2015 |
| Chicago Douglas Branch | 2000 | 2005 | 2020 |
| Minneapolis Hiawatha | 1982 | 2004 | 2020 |
| Portland Interstate MAX | 1998 | 2004 | 2015 |
| Denver Southeast LRT | 1997 | 2006 | 2020 |
| Dallas North Central | 1996 | 2002 | 2010 |
| Salt Lake City Univ + Med Cen | 1997 | 2001 | 2020 |

## Current Ridership vs. AA Forecast

**Current Ridership vs. AA Forecast**

- Average = 61.1%
- 50th Percentile = 59.5%

## Current Ridership adjusted to the Forecast Year vs. AA Forecast

**Current Ridership adjusted to the Forecast Year vs. AA Forecast**

- Average = 74.5%
- 50th Percentile = 63.8%

## Actual Ridership vs. AA/DEIS/MIS Forecast: Comparison of Study Results

| Study | Average | 50th Percentile |
| --- | --- | --- |
| “Pickrell” Report 1990 | 42.4% | 41.4% |
| FTA 2003 | 68.9% | 70.5% |
| FTA 2007 | 74.5% | 63.8% |

- TRB 2008 Session 371     						Federal Transit Administration

## Distribution of Actual vs. AA Forecast Ridership

## Interpretation of the Results

**Lack of detailed information ******** unable to conclusively determine the reasons for systematic over-estimation of ridership**
**2003 study supplemented by detailed analysis of several case studies**
**Usefulness of the findings was limited by lack of archived data and model information**
***Before and After Studies***** are crucial to understanding the reasons behind forecasting successes and failures**

- TRB 2008 Session 371     						Federal Transit Administration

## Conclusions

**8 of 18 projects carry over 80 percent of forecast **
**Average actual ridership 74.5 percent of forecast **
**Forecasts in the 2007 study not significantly more accurate than those in 2003 study **
**Both much better than 1990 study**

- TRB 2008 Session 371     						Federal Transit Administration