New APTA ridership totals of rail
 

Rail News: Passenger Rail
APTA: Transit ridership fell, commuter-rail ridership rose in Q3
Here's the link: https://www.apta.com/resources/stati...rship-APTA.pdf


In August 2018, Denton County Transportation Authority in Lewisville, Texas, launched its A-train free fare zones and has seen ridership increases in those locations.
Photo – Denton County Transportation Authority's Facebook page
Americans took 2.5 billion trips on public transportation systems in third-quarter 2018, down 1.75 percent compared with ridership in third-quarter 2017, according to the American Public Transportation Association (APTA).

Year over year, rail ridership was down on heavy- and light-rail systems, but up — 0.7 percent — on commuter-rail systems. More than half of commuter railroads posted ridership increases in the third quarter, APTA officials said in a press release.

"In order to increase mobility options, public transit systems are increasing frequency, improving routing, experimenting with fare changes, and engaging in partnerships to offer the best service possible to meet customers’ needs," said APTA President and Chief Executive Officer Paul Skoutelas.

Nationally, commuter railroads logged a combined ridership of 126.6 million trips during the third quarter, with 18 of 31 them reporting increases. Commuter-rail systems that logged double-digit ridership increases in the quarter included Orlando, Florida, (70 percent); San Rafael, California, (65.8 percent); and Stockton, California, (10.5 percent).

Ridership on heavy-rail systems (subways and elevated trains) fell 2.4 percent to about 916.3 million trips in the quarter compared with a year ago. Increases were registered in Philadelphia (7.8 percent); San Juan, Puerto Rico (6.4 percent); Miami (5.9 percent); Atlanta, (1.4 percent); and Lindenwold, New Jersey (0.1 percent).

On light-rail systems (modern streetcars, trolleys and heritage trolleys), ridership in the quarter dipped 3.6 percent to 133.2 million trips compared with the year-ago period. However, ridership grew in only eight out of 27 systems. Agencies that reported double-digit light-rail ridership gains were Charlotte, North Carolina, (55.3 percent); Seattle-King County Metro (21.6 percent); Hampton, Virginia, (11.5 percent); and Houston (10.8 percent).

i was looking for possible reasons for the dip in city rail ridership. it doesn't appear to be related to gas prices at all, which were a little higher in 2018 than 2017 (although prices dipped at the end of 2018). hmm.

https://ycharts.com/indicators/gas_price

its nice to see that commuter rail ridership increased though.

most observers seem to think that uber/lyft are cutting into city transit system numbers nationwide.

and i'm guilty of it myself. if i'm heading out somewhere and the CTA app says the next train or bus is 8 minutes away, i'll uber it up and get a car to pick me up, usually in 3 minutes or less.

and if there's a transfer along the way, that's like an automatic uber. waiting for a train or bus once is one thing, but TWO waits? who can be bothered with that?

sure, it costs a little more, but it beats waiting for the train or bus.

I think Uber/Lyft is the main culprit, and yeah, I contribute to the problem. It costs basically the same for a family, and it's much quicker, easier, quieter, door-to-door service (great in inclement weather) and more pleasant.

Its absolutely Uber / Lyft. I no longer take the train for any commute less than 10 miles, as its just easier and faster with uber. Pretty much the only time i take the train now is if im going to Hollywood or Koreatown from Downtown LA

And congestion inevitably just keeps getting worse.

The trend continues.

Agree with all the Uber/Lyft theories.

I very rarely take public transit anymore because it's full of homeless [this is California] and mental people that ruin it for the rest of us normal people. It takes f.o.r.e.v.e.r. to go anywhere. I'd rather pay a few extra bucks for comfort, safety and savings in time.

Not too long ago, I actually had a transit app and would use it regularly to find the best possible route to place X. That entire idea is long gone and never even occurs to me.

Same. It's so easy to ride share. Even if I do take rail then it's usually one of the ride shares on the way back cause we want to get home faster. Now for commuting purposes I'll take the train both ways more often, but a night out really just depends.

Yes this is true of the trains in and around Sacramento-locals sometimes refer the RT trains as rolling toilets, same for metro Denver when I lived there...:(

I often took Uber/Lyft to a rail station, skipping the bus. Transit advocates should embrace ride sharing because it makes living car free much easier than just by using walking or taking transit alone.

It's also an incentive for transit companies to step up their game as they're no longer the only affordable deal in town. I feel like they were using to having a monopoly and didn't give a **** about the customer experience.

Best part of all is there are a lot more developments being built nowadays with little or zero parking. Developers, bankers, city planners, and some city leaders are starting to get it. More people living car free in a given neighborhood will in the long run lead to better transit and a more attractive pedestrian public realms geared to people, and not cars. The lack of parking has been a NIMBY rallying cry for decades, and it's hilarious when they flip out when a new building is constructed where parking minimums were waived. They just don't get it nor do they understand that it is possible and desirable for some residents to ditch the car note and expensive maintenance to live car-free in select cities where this is possible.

Uber/Lyft are hardly affordable. A CTA 30-day pass is $105 and pre-tax and takes me anywhere in the city. That's like 8 rides on Uber/Lyft if you're lucky.

It's way more affordable than car ownership. I can tell you that.

Kevin O'Leary: Don't buy a car, do this instead
Sarah Berger | @sarahelizberger 10:03 AM ET Thu, 27 Sept 2018
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/27/shar...s-instead.html

I use uber maybe 2 - 4 times a month.

I ride my bike to work every work day.

The vast majority of our errands are accomplished on foot in our neighborhood.

I have no need for a monthly CTA pass, but I used to ride the CTA more often in the past before uber/lyft became so freaking easy and affordable to use. I wouldn't uber everyday for something like commuting, but for occasional usage for one-off trips, it's really hard to beat.

Most American cities which aren't on the coasts don't have sufficient job density to make total car free living realistic, but they do have areas of moderate residential density where conflict over parking is an issue. This issue will remain until autonomous cars completely take over. If a city like Phoenix eliminated parking minimums, it probably wouldn't result in market driven density increases and greater transit usage. Instead developers would still add parking to new construction.

The exception to the rule would be downtowns, though. Most sunbelt downtowns still have paid parking, and there's and expectation that you have to pay for parking. They have the highest concentration of transit. Few residents, its mostly people in huge corporate office towers that have parking garages. So I would agree that if we wanted to eliminate parking minimums, that downtowns are the place to start. You'd see fewer podium towers as developers could build or buy a garage a few blocks away instead.

This is why I choose my words carefully: "to live car-free in select cities where this is possible." The only other town that comes to mind would be Chicago, but I suppose there are others not along the coasts where it's possible.

Agreed on the parking. I've heard a city planner make the argument that reducing or eliminating parking minimums for retail properties wouldn't mean less parking would be built as the lenders would still require parking as part of their financial models to ensure the project is feasible. In Jersey City, right outside of Manhattan, there was a requirement long ago that there be 0.8 parking spaces for every residential unit. However, a city planning study found that the garages we're only 40 percent utilized. The point was there should be less emphasis on regulating parking as the market would find an appropriate balance.

I suspect very few would buy a new home or condo in Phoenix if it didn't come with at least one parking spot, so that's what the market will do regardless of the zoning.

Id note that if gas prices were higher, than Lyft/Uber would be more expensive, so theyre certainly intertwined.

One aspect that keep getting ignored is pricing. Gas prices have fallen over the past decade, but most transit agencies hike their fares every 2 years. Some cities are charging $3 for a bus ride. Thats insane to me.

Uber and Lyft also operate at a loss. Right now your rides are artificially cheap because they are still trying to drive their competition out of the market. Once they have to pivot towards a model that is sustainable long term the price advantage goes away. The question is whether or not this will happen before driverless cars become commonplace?

Uber landed in Philadelphia during the fall of 2014. My peak Uber usage was approximately a year later. Since then it has declined and stabilized at about 2 rides a month. One factor is definitely that I have a monthly pass for my commute to work so any time that I can take SEPTA I will since it's effectively free. Another factor is that Uber has gotten more expensive here, Uber Pool is now that the price point that Uber X used to occupy and many times the route is so convoluted that it's not even faster than the bus. Uber is now about the same as a cab so it all comes down to what's available.

I recently learned my high-rise building has a cab light. I watched someone ask the concierge to turn on the cab light and immediately a cab swooped into the pullout by the lobby. I guess it helps to live on a major thoroughfare, but that's convenience...

All transit agencies operate at a loss, some of them substantial as fares don't even cover 20 percent of operating costs. That's by design of course. Transit isn't meant to be profitable, but sometimes the operating subsidy is so too large or lacks political support for the city to fill, so they rely on an increase in fares instead.

Gas prices aren't the main cost driver. Look at the breakdown of any budget and at least 70% of the operating costs will be attributable to salaries and fringe benefits. Basic cost of living raises every year, let alone any service expansions, will lead to higher operating costs and possibly hire fares if no other source of revenue. Fuel is probably only 5 to 10% of the operating costs, with the rest being maintenance.

Anyone have access to hard numbers of their transit agencies budget?

Here it is for MTA.

https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/...bl3n9xlNWg.png

Fuel is literally just 1% of the operating cost. Add in electric power + fuel and it's 4.1%.


Bulk of the funds are for salaries and wages, retirement and other employee benefits, and post employment benefits other than pension. Maintenance and other operating contracts professional service contracts are all expenses to have the right personnel needed to operate and maintain the system.

Just a reminder here's the APTA link: https://www.apta.com/resources/stati...rship-APTA.pdf

Major transit ridership increase all across Canada. TTC +11%. GO Transit and STM +4%. Translink +6%. Brampton Transit +17%. Uber/Lyft must be to blame for that too.

Uber/Lyft have at multiple possible effects, and it plays out differently by city -- in some cities it might encourage more people to use transit, and in others (at least so far) people use it less. Some of the factors that come to mind include:
1. Is the Uber/Lyft driver pay structure favorable for getting plenty of drivers, allowing faster pick-ups?
2. Do the roads make driving easy and quick? Are there HOV-2 lanes?
3. Is transit frequent, quick (can relate to dedicated lanes or rail), and reasonably pleasant (is behavior policed, and does the average worker ride it)?
4. On the flip side, are a lot of transit riders able to pay for Uber/Lyft, i.e. what's ridership by income or net worth?
5. Are Uber/Lyft/transit enough to get people to ditch car ownership?
6. How concentrated are jobs, i.e. near transit?
7. Is transit being added or subtracted?

I bet some of these factors will show themselves in cities that are rising/falling with transit use.

Mine, Seattle, was rising very slowly early in the year at least for a couple agencies. Let's see:
1. I don't know how their pay structure varies, but the city is expensive.
2. The roads are jammed, but HOV lanes are common.
3. Transit is rarely excellent but it's decent everywhere, including HOV lanes to make buses fast, and a lot of sub-10-minute frequencies at rush hours. The average rider income is pretty close to the regional average.
4. Uh oh.
5. Yes. Between cost and these options (along with walking), a lot of people don't have cars. A lot of people spend $2,500 for housing with no parking, take the bus or walk to work, and use Lyft on nights out.
6. Fairly concentrated on the white collar side. Same with most construction.
7. Added. Rail is slowly being added but we've upped bus service quite a bit lately.

My hierarchy of urban transport:

Walking
Biking
Train
Uber
Bus


In my city of Norfolk in a year I walk to a destination almost daily. I bike 2-3 times a week. I take the train about 4-7 times(I am downtown, so the destination for the train are limited). I Uber/Lyft 2-4 times a year. I take the bus 1-2 times(mainly when its at school and I don't feel like riding the bike home...because its now raining or something).

However, I think car-sharing could be a great thing in a city like Chicago. If I moved there I would like to know that my gf has her car, I can take the train/bus almost anywhere, bike, walk, or Uber if it makes more sense. Those options would have me, easily, to ditch my car. Heck, I almost ditched it here living in Norfolk because the gf walks to work(she uses about a tank of gas every 2 months) but I decided against it because I never know if I will end up in Dallas or some place like that.

As for the report, whats up with Bostons numbers?

Q3 data is now available:

https://www.apta.com/resources/stati...rship-APTA.pdf

Many of the Canadian systems are up over double digits percentage from last year. For example, Toronto's heavy rail system is up 37 percent. That doesn't seem right. Looks like they may have reclassified a light rail to heavy rail?

I think APTA made some calculation errors in this release. I see some wacky things happening, like 80% year-over-year declines for huge agencies, but only in one quarter.

APTA is very sloppy with their releases. Couldn't they at least get an intern to eyeball the numbers?

I was thinking that because several of the numbers don't align with the official release from the transit agencies. There are things that are higher too high or too low. I understand APTA counts "unliked trips" but that data isn't collected by transit agencies and would have to be calculated somehow.

For the Toronto figures, this was previously addressed on the Canada subforum. It seems there was an error when the previous lower figures the TTC reported to the APTA were linked trips when the APTA normally works with unlinked.

The numbers for Brampton Transit and York Region Transit are also linked trips. Brampton unlinked should be around 35 million, not 23 million, and York Region around 23 million unlinked rather than 18 million.

That would explain it. Thanks!

APTA Q4 2018 data is now out:

https://www.apta.com/resources/stati...rship-APTA.pdf

Looks like pretty much every agency is taking a hit from the introduction of Uber / Lyft.

Also, LA will take a big hit in regards to Light Rail this year with the shutdown of the Blue line for a majority of the year for improvements.

Last time I looked at Chicago's CTA budget, personnel costs were almost exactly 2/3rds of the budget. One of the variances between at least American agencies is that some agencies have their own police force on their budget, some cities provide special police divisions for the transit agency as part of the police budget. The latter is the case with Chicago, which I understand was done as a back-door subsidy of the CTA by the city without violating the state-mandated "fare recovery ratio" which has varied over the years but historically has been slightly over 50% (the fare recovery ratio applies to the operations budget and is a state-mandated percentage of the budget that must be covered by fares instead of direct state or local subsidies).

In Chicago and New York and I suspect Boston, Washington, San Francisco and maybe Philly, rail is faster during most rush hours except certain holidays where a lot of people are on vacation, as long as you're origin and destination are within a reasonable walking distance to the stations. I live in downtown Chicago right now and walk or ride a bike to work most of the time, but when I lived on the North Side, whether it be Rogers Park, Lakeview or Ravenswood/Lincoln Square, taking a taxi home was only a comfort option, almost never a speed improvement. When I lived in Gold Coast I lived nearly a ten minute walk to a train station plus it was so close to downtown that I usually had to let one or more trains go by in the morning, so oddly then it was usually faster to take a taxi as compared to a bus, the only real option for my commute then. But the bus was significantly cheaper, and not *that* much longer, so I used that most of the time except when I would work really long hours.

And, if anything, it's gotten harder to get on a Near North Side (Gold Coast/River North) train in the mornings than it was 15-20 years ago and driving has gotten much slower. It was usually a 10 minute ride back then - I even made it home during rush hour in 5 minutes once with a crazy French (from Toulouse) cab driver. More recently, it always takes at least 15 minutes and I live 3/4ths of a mile closer to the Loop then I did then. Some of that additional traffic is just because the population downtown has skyrocketed, but a significant portion of the worsened traffic downtown is a direct result of Uber and Lyft. So that's why I usually walk or bike. Biking is definitely fastest. Walking is frequently the same time from the office home in the evenings. I do walk faster than most people, but I'm definitely still walking and not running.

Long story short, Uber and Lyft have really negatively impacted traffic downtown. I actually suggested in Crains (local business magazine) that the City should tax Uber/Lyft rides that originate or terminate downtown the equivalent of a CTA fare and dedicate at least half of that tax to transit. And for trips that both originate and terminate in downtown, it should be a per-point tax, so such trips should be taxed double a transit fare. I suggested it apply to the area the City calls "The Central Area," which is an area of approximately 8 square miles consisting primarily of the Loop and Loop-adjacent neighborhoods that the city uses for planning purposes. Forcing people to pay an extra $4.50 or $5.00 to take a trip from the Gold Coast to the Loop or vice-versa won't impact everyone, but it would impact enough people that it would reduce traffic and provide an alternate source of revenue for transit both directly and by driving at least some additional trips to the CTA.

Uber/Lyft are clearly impacting PT ridership nationwide, especially for short trips and off peak trips.

Also, it would be nice if the clowns at APTA would actually bother reading their releases. They, very clearly, have mistakes in their 4Q ridership numbers (like it's obvious they forgot a zero or mixed up columns). An intern could probably clean everything up in 30 minutes, but I guess that's too much to ask.

For some reason, they had no impacts in Canada, where transit ridership is still growing (4.9% in 2018 in Montreal, for example) despite Uber also being present.

Better, more frequent service attracts more riders and reduces the need to use Uber/Lyft, I would guess.

We very clearly need Canadian gas prices.

lol! I guess it helps, but I don't think it's a major factor in deciding to take transit vs commuting by car, at least in Canada. The difference isn't big enough. What you save in gas, you need it to buy your transit pass.

Traffic, convenience and frequency are bigger factors imo.

How do you know that rideshare had no impact? Maybe the growth would have been greater pre-rideshare. It might also be that Canada has less rideshare penetration, given lower salaries and higher gas/vehicle prices.

And your supposition that "better/more frequent" service combats rideshare doesn't seem evident in the U.S. numbers. It isn't obvious that the cities with better or more frequent transit are less affected by rideshare, which makes sense, as it isn't like people take Uber because the bus doesn't come often enough; they take Uber because it's faster/more convenient door-to-door service.

Actually, now that I'm looking at the Canadian numbers, it's likely yet another case of APTA data fail. They have Toronto subway with a 41.28% quarterly increase in ridership, and Toronto light rail with a 34% quarterly drop in ridership. Yeah, that sounds realistic.

Maybe they can afford to hire a few data-checking interns, given the head of APTA makes a crazy salary (I think seven figures?).

The data looks worse if you factor population growth.

My city's numbers grew slightly but overall less that population.

Q1 2019 is now out:

https://www.apta.com/wp-content/uplo...hip-APTA-1.pdf

The trend of declining ridership, including the big agencies like LA, in the US continues for the most part.

The 2Q numbers from APTA are finally out.

I sense that the rideshare-based decline in the U.S. is bottoming out. A number of transit agencies see increased ridership again. In NYC, basically every agency, for every mode of transit, shows ridership gains. Some, like the LIRR, show extremely robust gains.

At some point, rideshare has to be fully "priced into" the ridership numbers. I think we're approaching that point.

Los Angeles - Metro - has been declining for years. Not bad for Q2, just about 1% decline for heavy rail and bus. Light rail was 15% decline, but that was expected since its #1 used lightrail line, the Blue line, has been closed in stages for a system line overhaul/renovations. Q3 will be worse because it closed down the northern half that it shares 2 stations with the northern half of the Blue Line with Expo line. While expo opened recently the 2 shared stations,the Blue wont fully re-open until late October I think. So expect really sharp ridership numbers in Q3 for light rail in LA Metro agency.

More bad news for US transit as it continues it's decline. All of the 5 biggest systems saw marginal declines and overall all US heavy rail, LRT, and bus sectors saw declines with the only exception being commuter rail. The US is growing at a rather slow 0.7% per annum so the MINIMUM transit ridership should be at that level to at least maintain per-capita ridership.

Transit agencies will try to write it off by asserting that ridership is declining due to urber/llyft, working at home, ride sharing etc but that is a ridiculous cop-out for public consumption. One only has to look at Canada's continually rising ridership well beyond the population growth rate of 1.4% to exemplify how such excuses have no merit.

So many of the US systems even in mid-sized citiies have such pathetically low ridership that they should simply shut down except for services to the elderly & disabled. In such cities the transit system has gone from moving people to a make-work project. They would offer far superior service and probably at a lower cost to the taxpayers by simply setting up a shared taxi-type system which are common in low ridership systems in many parts of the developing world like Mexico.

None of this is true. Literally fakenews.

MTA subway carries 70% of all heavy rail riders in U.S. and has a nearly 3% 2Q ridership gain. LIRR, nation's largest commuter rail operator, had a nearly 11% 2Q ridership gain. MTA bus, nation's largest bus agency, had a 1% 2Q ridership gain.

Except it's absolutely confirmed that rideshare has had a significant impact throughout the planet. The rise in rideshare correlates exactly with declines in transit share.
Not sure of the point of this non-sequitur, outside of trolling. You're apparently mad that big cities have too low transit share, and mad that small cities have too high transit share.

Rideshare is a complete cop-out Does it effect transit ridership? Yes but that is true of every advanced economy in the world yet somehow other countries are still seeing climbing ridership. The most obvious comparison for the US is Canada and yet Canada has seen continually rising ridership as the US steadly declines.

I want cities to get lower ridership?? Actually it's quite the opposite.

The reason for transit systems is to move people as safely, efficiently, and timely as possible and for many mid-sized and smaller cities they fail miserably on all fronts. Transit is not suppose to be a make-work project but a service and if the service model isn't working then you change it for the betterment of your citizens.

Shared taxi systems do NOT drop you off and pick you up at the door but rather only run on current {or eventually expanded} bus routes. People walk to the usual bus stop and get dropped off at their ussual bus stop. You pay the same fare that you normally would for the bus service area ie $2.50 for, say, 20km of travel and you keep your transfer ticket for tax reasons just like you would for your bus ticket or you can buy your monthly pass. If convienent with other potential drivers on the taxi, the taxi can take you straight to your nearest bus stop to where you are going getting rid of timely and unpleasant transfers. Financially the only difference is that instead of your fare going towards a lousy transit service, it goes to the taxi driver, no tip expected.

As far as service, you CANNOT call up your local taxi and tell them to pick you up, you rather wait for it like you would a bus at your bus stop. That, of course, is where the superior service comes from as a taxi will probably pass you by every 5 or 10 times not every 45 minutes to an hour for your bus.

No buses to buy, no maintenance , no driver's wages or pensions, no extra cost to the city {although the city would probably pay for it's MUCH smaller control/administration centre} but VASTLY superior service to your citizens and isn't that what it's all about?