G.E. Equipped PCCs/transit ridership

[Edward H. Lybarger]

West Penn was far from "clueless" about the number of passengers carried;
they just didn't spend money counting 'em!  Instead they estimated from
revenues, having a good idea of average trip length, and I suspect they were
no more inaccurate (or accurate) than anyone else.

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
[mailto:owner-pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org]On Behalf Of John
Swindler
Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2000 1:13 PM
To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
Subject: Re: G.E. Equipped PCCs/transit ridership





>From: HRBran99 at aol.com
>Reply-To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
>To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
>Subject: Re: G.E. Equipped PCCs/transit ridership
>Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 00:47:55 EDT
>
>In a message dated 07/19/2000 2:29:53 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
>j_swindler at hotmail.com writes:
>
><< In 1998, Americans took an
>  estimated 8.7 billion trips using public transportation, an increase of
>4.6  percent more than the previous year. Ridership has increased by 16
>percent  since 1995, an average of 4 percent each year. >>
>
>One must also note the way that transit trips are now reported. For
>instance, Central Florida Regional Transportation Authority takes into
>account transfers from one route to another and reports the second or third
>ride as a single trip. In reality this is not the case. If I board a bus in
>Seminole County, pay a single fare and request a transfer, that is an
>actual trip by transit. However, when I transfer to a second route in
>Orange County and present my transfer to the operator it is again counted
>as a single trip. It is not a new trip, but merely a continuation of the
>original trip via a different route. No fare was collected for the
>transfer. This, however, is reported to the US Government as two trips, not
>one, as it actually was. I believe most of the increase is coming from new
>reporting methods and not from new riders. This, of course, looks great on
>paper and really great when reported to the media. But, sadly, it is only
>the old 'smoke and mirrors' routine. Believe me in the vast majority of
>medium and small US cities, only those who must use public transit are
>using it. The large US cities, to some extent, do show increases. Nothing,
>however, short of a major event which takes away the automobile, is going
>to get the majority of the American people out of their personal
>transportation choice. Fortunately, we have a rich history of public
>transit modes and methods to discuss.
>
>HrB


True, but,

and some transit operators counted zones as separate fares.  And I'm not
talking today.  This was 30 years ago.  And then there was the bus driver in
Scranton in the late 70s who counted slow senior citizens as 2 or 3 fares.
Except he didn't realize he was talking to two representatives from PennDOT
that administered the state senior citizen  free transit program.  30-40
years ago transit companies counted money, because that was what was really
important.  Today riders are counted for budget justification purposes.

Actually, numbers reported today are more valid then those reported 30 years
ago.  Why?  Because today there are bureaucrats holding purse strings that
can - and do - tell transit managers that they WILL count passengers whether
"we never did it that way" or not.  And they WILL have counters on the fare
boxes they are buying with state and federal dollars (can also be
separate-but driver must be able to provide a valid count), and they WILL
accept the federal section 15 definitions if they want federal money in the
future.

If you want fiction, I have an internal SEPTA memo from the early 1970s that
tries to explain to upper management how the "heuristically derived"
passenger statistics reported to the press are calculated.  Today SEPTA has
counters on the vehicles.

Going back to your Orange County transfer example, transit agencies report
two cumulative rider numbers:  Person trips and total passengers.  Total
Passengers is transfers plus person trips.

You are certainly correct about transit in small and medium sized cities
today.  It's a joke.  For the Lancaster-York-Williamsport sized systems it's
strictly a social service organization today.  But what's happening in some
of the larger cities with rail transit?  Is this another case where the
facts are not supporting our long-held beliefs?

As a final comment on counting passengers, Ed L. has some correspondence
that indicates that West Penn Railways was clueless about the number of
passengers they carried.  (hey, Jim, how did I do on trying to bring this
back on topic???)

John S.


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