Impact of COVID-19 on Public Transit Accessibility and Ridership
Public transit is central to cultivating equitable communities. Meanwhile, the novel coronavirus disease COVID-19 and associated social restrictions has radically transformed ridership behavior in urban areas. Perhaps the most concerning aspect of the COVID-19 pandemic is that low-income and histori...
Gespeichert in:
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext bestellen |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | Public transit is central to cultivating equitable communities. Meanwhile,
the novel coronavirus disease COVID-19 and associated social restrictions has
radically transformed ridership behavior in urban areas. Perhaps the most
concerning aspect of the COVID-19 pandemic is that low-income and historically
marginalized groups are not only the most susceptible to economic shifts but
are also most reliant on public transportation. As revenue decreases, transit
agencies are tasked with providing adequate public transportation services in
an increasingly hostile economic environment. Transit agencies therefore have
two primary concerns. First, how has COVID-19 impacted ridership and what is
the new post-COVID normal? Second, how has ridership varied spatio-temporally
and between socio-economic groups? In this work we provide a data-driven
analysis of COVID-19's affect on public transit operations and identify
temporal variation in ridership change. We then combine spatial distributions
of ridership decline with local economic data to identify variation between
socio-economic groups. We find that in Nashville and Chattanooga, TN,
fixed-line bus ridership dropped by 66.9% and 65.1% from 2019 baselines before
stabilizing at 48.4% and 42.8% declines respectively. The largest declines were
during morning and evening commute time. Additionally, there was a significant
difference in ridership decline between the highest-income areas and
lowest-income areas (77% vs 58%) in Nashville. |
---|---|
DOI: | 10.48550/arxiv.2008.02413 |