[PRCo] Re: Fwd: HELP needed - to explain ridership drop in 7 cities

[John Swindler]

When you look into the details, the ridership loss tends to be on the bus systems.  In Pittsburgh, the light rail is still around 25,000 day, just as the streetcar system was in the 1970s.  But the system ridership is down from about 115 million per year to around 70 million.  
 
It is also more expensive to carry passengers on a bus, rather then rail.  The cost per passenger mile is higher in St. Louis, for instance, on the bus rather then the rail.  Take a look at the FTA's annual transit statistic section.
 
The loss in bus ridership has nothing to do with higher fares and curtailment of service.  Buses just do not have much appeal to the public.  The fares are a constant, whether you ride the bus or use rail.  So why does the bus system tend to lose riders, while the rail system tends to hold its ridership?  Perhaps if you intend to drive, doesn't matter where you live.  But if you intend to use transit, there might be a tendency to find a home convenient to rail transit.
 
O'Toole is another one of these anti-raiil advocates that believe transit riders deserve nothing better then the back of the bus.
 
 
 
> Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2007 01:29:25 +0000> From: PRCoPCC at P-R-Co.com> To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org> Subject: [PRCo] Fwd: HELP needed - to explain ridership drop in 7 cities> > --- In LRPPro at yahos.com, Nawdry <nawdry at ...> wrote:> > I'm pulling together a response to a recent contention of Randal> O'Toole - and I could use some help from others on this list (as I> indicate below).> > In a talk delivered to a forum sponsored by the extremist-right John> Locke Foundation in Charlotte on Oct. 10th, O'Toole claimed:> > >>> So expensive are rail lines to build, maintain and operate that most> rail regions have, at some point, been forced to significantly raise> fares and/or curtail bus services, often leading to a loss of transit> riders. Thanks in part to the high cost of rails, transit systems in> Atlanta, Baltimore, Buffalo, Chicago, Cleveland, Philadelphia,> Pittsburgh, St.Louis, and the San Francisco Bay Area carried fewer> riders in 2005 than two decades before.> <<> > This prompted me to look into the ridership situation in these cities.> I don't have reports for 1985, but I do have the Sec. 15 reports for> 1983, so I used those, and compared with the NTD for 2005 - thus it's> 2 decades and 2 years. Here's what I found...> > (Trips = rider-trips, or boardings, in millions)> > City ... 1983 trips ... 2005 trips ... % change> > Atlanta ... 124.8 ... 142.4 ... 13.9% increase (refutes O'Toole)> > Baltimore ... 98.7 ... 103.4 ... 4.8% increase (refutes O'Toole)> > Buffalo ... 36.3 ... 23.5 ... (35.3%) decrease> > Chicago ... 684.9 ... 560.9 ... (18.1%) decrease> (1983 includes CTA+RTA, 2005 includes CTA+Metra)> > Cleveland ... 104.8 ... 65.5 ... (37.5%) decrease> > Philadelphia ... 369.5 ... 343.9 ... (6.9%) decrease> (includes SEPTA + PATCO; 1983 also includes Conrail+SEPTA)> > Pittsburgh ... 91.1 ... 67.2 ... (26.2%) decrease> > St. Louis ... 56.5 ... 46.4 ... (17.9%) decrease> > San Francisco-Bay Area ... 458.7 ... 399.5 ... (12.9%) decrease> (includes Muni, BART, AC Transit, Golden Gate Transit)> > OK ... so O'Toole was correct with respect to most of the cities in> his list. I think he has cherry-picked a handful of rail cities that> have, for one reason or another, fared rather badly. Of the 7 cities> that suffered declines, the majority (5) are "legacy" rail cities, but> 2 are basically new-start systems in the modern era (Buffalo, St. Louis).> > What I'm looking for is plausible explanations for the declines in> ridership. I fully realize that, especially in a broad number of older> industrial cities, the decline in transit use and system quality is> widespread. (I can handle that issue with comparisons with a number of> comparable bus-only cities.) However, I would also like to analyze the> SPECIFIC reasons for decline in these particular cities.> > Here's my off-the-cuff effort toward this - and it's here that I would> appreciate further input from LRPPro.> > * Buffalo: Decline of transit (35.3%) has followed population and> employment loss. This is described by several references:> > >>> Buffalo, once a thriving, commercial hub for western New York, has> experienced higher unemployment and seen residents leave the city in> recent years, even during the boom of the late 1990's. Each year, its> government has spent more money than it has taken in, becoming> dependent on state bailouts and borrowing to make ends meet.> <<> [New York Times 29 May 2003]> > Lisa Foderaro, writing in a New York Times article (18 September> 2006), described how "the heavy industry that had sprung up with the> [Erie] canal traffic collapsed"; thus, dozens of factories in the> region, mainly steel and grain operations, closed in the mid-1970's> alone. The economic decline was so severe that half the people left —> the population sliding from 580,000 in the mid-20th century to about> 290,000 today.> <<> > * Chicago: There has been a slight decline in central-city population> since the 1980s, and this might partly account for the 18% transit> ridership decline. The elimination of streetcars and trolleybuses> certainly represented a sharp decline in transit quality - but that> happened decades earlier. Was there a further drop in transit services> since the 1980s?> > * Cleveland: Industrial decline and a fairly steep loss of> central-city population might help explain some of the 37.5% decrease> in transit ridership.> > * Philadelphia: Core city has also experienced some population loss> (and probably industrial loss?) since the 1980s. In addition, haven't> there been more rail abandonments and suspension of trolleybus> services? This could account for much of the 6.9% ridership decrease.> What would account for decrease in PATCO ridership?> > * Pittsburgh: Core city also saw significant decline in population,> plus loss of major industrial activity such as steel. In addition,> while Pittsburgh converted streetcar and older trolley system into> modern LRT, much development focused on busways, and streetcar service> was suspended on some lines for over a decade. This might help explain> 26.2% ridership decrease.> > * St. Louis: I think I've got this one covered. St. Louis transit was> in free-fall decline in the 1980s (much of it a result of> dismemberment of the streetcar network) - that's why the city opted to> install LRT. But LRT didn't open until 1993. Since then, ridership has> grown, but not enough by 2005 to offset earlier decline, Thus, the> 17.9% nominal decrease from 1983.> > * San Francisco-Bay Area: The ridership loss here is particularly hard> to explain. Both core city and urban area have grown since 1980s.> Ostensibly, transit quality has been improved. > Nevertheless, SF-BA shows a 12.9% ridership decrease, in both SF and> Oakland.> > Thanks in advance for input on these issues.> > LH> > --- End forwarded message ---> > > > 
_________________________________________________________________
Peek-a-boo FREE Tricks & Treats for You!
http://www.reallivemoms.com?ocid=TXT_TAGHM&loc=us