G.E. Equipped PCCs/transit ridership

[Vigrass, Bill]

Yes, the wealth factor is very important.  In a study my group carried out
for the old HHFA (later UMTA, FTA)at Battelle Memorial Institute, Columbus,
Ohio circa 1966-7, our PhD mathematician ran some regression analyses.  It
illustrated an almost perfect INVERSE relationship between wealth and
surface public transit.  The more money people have, the less they use
ordinary transit.  On the other hand, rapid transit was not much affected,
and commuter railroad was somewhat positively affected.  Time is important,
and people who have a high time value and the income, will opt for the
fastest mode.  Surface transit is slow, especially so when transfers are
necessary.  

This is borne out by today's commuter railroad expansion, popularity of
modern high performance rapid transit systems, LRT and selected fast bus
services.

The comment about New York is interesting, immigration, with the
parenthetical comment "Eastern Europe?".   Maybe so, but a few years ago my
riding of the No. 7 Flushing line (Of John Rocker infamy) is that particular
line has been affected by Asian/Oriental immigration.  Flushing is a
thriving business area with all kinds of shops, and hardly an English
language sign in sight.  I thought I was in Hong Kong, Hanoi or Seoul, all
at the same time!
That's New York.

BV.  


-----Original Message-----
From: John Swindler [mailto:j_swindler at hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2000 10:29 AM
To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
Subject: Re: G.E. Equipped PCCs/transit ridership



There have been several comments concerning decline in transit ridership 
over past 40-50 years.

So I guess we are not bothering to read Passenger Transport, published by 
the American Public Transit Association.  They recently reported that 
transit ridership has been increasing in recent years, and is back to the 
levels experienced in the early 1960s.

However, one should be careful with statistics.  Within PA, as SEPTA 
passenger levels go, so goes the state.  Same may apply to New York City on 
a national level where recent immigration (Eastern Europe?) has supposedly 
increased subway ridership.  Also, modal split between autos and transit 
continues to decline.  But there are a lot more persons and person trips 
today then 40 years ago.  Transit is getting a very slim slice of an 
expanding pie.
js


>Fred W. Schneider III commented
>
>And why would you want to spend your tax dollars (and mine) on a light rail

>project that will receive inadequate utilization.  I could accept it if it 
>would generate 40,000 riders a day but how many can you name that do 
>outside of PATCO and the LA Green Line that are in that category?  Maybe 
>25,000 a day is realistic but still there aren't many systems in that range

>either.  But we have a lot like Baltimore than run empty trains all day 
>long (and then run three car trains all day when there is a ball game so 
>that they will be ready when it ends).
>


Those numbers, Fred, are on the extracts of the Federal Transit 
Administration's Section 15 reports which I dropped off at your house couple

weeks ago.  If anyone else is curious, they are available on the FTA's web 
site.
js


>Carl Zager wrote:
> > On Thu, 8 Jun 2000, Derrick J Brashear wrote:
> > > On Thu, 8 Jun 2000, Jim Holland wrote:
> > > >     It was not necessarily the fact that *we-the-people* abandoned 
>trolleycars  --  we abandoned public transport for private mobility  -- 
>which means abandoning trolleycars, trolley coaches, and motor coaches!
> > > > This, too, was a factor but not the total cause. It was inevitable 
>that this would happen!
> > Jim,
> >


This is a frequent topic in which we railfans lament about the public (us) 
"abandoning" our beloved streetcars.

But what else have we "abandoned".  How about the family farm?  How about 
canals?  How about ice houses?  How about the telegraph?   How about polio 
wards in hospitals?  How about steam ships for international travel? (just 
how many European vacations could we have afforded, Fred, (on the QE2) if it

were not for Boeing's products). And when was the last time you cooked on a 
wood stove?  And do you regret that society has "abandoned" outhouses?

Maybe what we and our parents/grandparents have witnessed is a society that 
has become wealthy beyond its wildest imagination?  So wealthy that we can 
afford to not only have one car, but multiple cars within a family - can 
afford to build individual houses in rural areas (suburbs) with conveniences

undreamt about 100 years ago.  Maybe we have become so wealthy that we can 
easily afford conveniences, and are no longer CONDEMNED to using public 
transport.

All considered, maybe we should be very thankful that West Penn and the PCC 
in Pittsburgh lasted as long as they did.

Just some thoughts

John



> > In the long run -- say the last 40 years (has it been that long!) -- I 
>would agree, totally with your assessment, particularly in the Pittsburgh 
>area. But in the beginning, it appeared that "we" did abandon trolleys for 
>buses. We probably now know that was only an interim step toward private 
>autos.
> > I am struck, periodically, with news reports that indicate this agency 
>or that private developer suggesting an investigation of installing (or 
>re-building abandoned) rail lines for commuter traffic -- even here in 
>south central Indiana. They go nowhere, but hope springs eternal.
> >  Carl Zager                                             KB9RVB
> >  czager at bloomington.in.us         http://www.mccsc.edu/~czager
>

________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com