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

[Herb Brannon]

  The whole economic base of Cleveland fell apart after 9/11. This, I am positive, was part of the Bush governments plan to further 'divide and conquer' the Middle Class. Now, however, since being rescued by steel companies from Belgium, Germany, and Holland, the Cleveland economy is very vibrant. The city has returned to being a bright star of Middle Class people and values in an otherwise faded sky of former "industrial memories." The phrase "Middle Class" is a "dirty" word to the New World Order demons who are now in control. This is what I meant some weeks ago, when, in a post to this list on the subject of the Pittsburgh industrial decline, which I am sure some list members did not fully understand, I said something to the effect that, ".....all that testosterone was not liked by the New World Order crowd...." In a population with a majority of Middle Class workers there is strength, intelligence, unity, and power which does constitute a threat, perceived or real, to
 those who would twist the American freedoms and values into something unholy for their own gain. Oh yes, I stand 100% behind what I say because it is time that the truth is spoken.
   
  Anyway, I have always been able to get weekends and holidays off. That is why I stayed at Harvard Avenue Station rather than transfer to Triskett Station. Triskett has all "good" routes whereas Harvard Avenue has about two-thirds Eastside routes and one-third Westside routes. Like I always tell everyone (tongue in cheek, of course)........"they can kill you just as easy on the 55X-Clifton Blvd Express as they can on the 14-Kinsman Road Local."
Jim Holland <PRCoPCC at P-R-Co.com> wrote:
  Hi Herb~!~!~!


A big part of that was the Dot-Com bust in 2001 which preceded 9.11 and 
affected much of the country -- 9.11 had very little effect here in SF 
that could be easily seen. 9.11 may have had much bigger effect there as 
there was a real scare in Ohio since the plane that crashed in PA 
circled over Ohio and Cleveland specifically if my memory is working. 
Dot-Com bust here, with Slippery-Con Valley immediately south, was 
pronounced. Here in SF and CA we also had the energy crisis with Enron 
PhudDuddies (PhDs, College-Types~!~!) reacting with glee at every 
vehicle accident as they cut electricity causing traffic signals to fail.

Someone also came across figgers for SF which seem Outlandish for 
passenger counts in 1980 and Maybe different formulas were used then. So 
who knows where we truly do stand.

Are you able to get weekends and holidays off now?




Herb Brannon wrote:
> That's odd. RTA figures (not saying that those figures are correct or perhaps a different 'formula' was used to compile them) indicate that ridership has risen annually since Jan 2002.Ridership seemed to take a big nosedive, along with everything else, after the September 11th attacks. The ridership increases took place on Fixed Route Bus, All Rail Lines, and Community Circulator Routes. It is true, however, that service levels are no where near what they were 10 or 15 years ago.
> 
> 
> After the 9/11 business RTA began cutting routes, service, and jobs. I had just come back to Cleveland, from Orlando in April 2001. I was hired right back by RTA but had to start over as a part-time operator. During my first period of employment with RTA (1993 to 1996) I was part-time for one year and then became full-time. After I returned in 2001 I stayed part-time until June, 2004 when I became full-time. This was a personal economic disaster for me and others in the same boat as me. Many operators were laid off and many were transfered from Full-time BACK to Part-time. Perhaps a lot of this decline is do to the crap started, mainly by the federal government, after 9/11.
> "James B. Holland" 
wrote:
> --- In LRPPro at yahos.com, Nawdry 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 ---
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Herb Brannon
> 




Herb Brannon