HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     
Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #41  
Old Posted Apr 16, 2019, 6:56 PM
Crawford Crawford is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 18,919
Quote:
Originally Posted by begratto View Post
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.
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #42  
Old Posted Apr 16, 2019, 7:05 PM
Crawford Crawford is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 18,919
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?).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43  
Old Posted Apr 16, 2019, 7:21 PM
mhays mhays is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 17,440
The data looks worse if you factor population growth.

My city's numbers grew slightly but overall less that population.
__________________
"Alot" isn't a word.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #44  
Old Posted Jun 27, 2019, 12:26 AM
accord1999 accord1999 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 374
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #45  
Old Posted Sep 27, 2019, 1:41 AM
Crawford Crawford is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 18,919
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #46  
Old Posted Sep 27, 2019, 8:51 AM
saybanana saybanana is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Southern California
Posts: 135
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #47  
Old Posted Sep 27, 2019, 9:27 PM
ssiguy ssiguy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: White Rock BC
Posts: 6,861
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48  
Old Posted Sep 27, 2019, 9:44 PM
Crawford Crawford is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 18,919
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssiguy View Post
More bad news for US transit as it continues it's decline. All of the 5 biggest systems saw marginal declines.
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ssiguy View Post
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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssiguy View Post
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.
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #49  
Old Posted Sep 27, 2019, 10:17 PM
ssiguy ssiguy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: White Rock BC
Posts: 6,861
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #50  
Old Posted Sep 28, 2019, 7:45 PM
ssiguy ssiguy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: White Rock BC
Posts: 6,861
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?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #51  
Old Posted Sep 28, 2019, 8:43 PM
SIGSEGV's Avatar
SIGSEGV SIGSEGV is offline
>~< , QED!
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: South Loop, Chicago
Posts: 1,404
Not only is rideshare siphoning up (largely off-peak) transit riders, but they also choke up the streets with traffic and have a nasty habit of blocking bus stops / bus lanes/ bike lanes. Uber/Lyft probably know when a rideshare vehicle is stopped in a bus stop/bus lane, they should fine the the driver $100 each time.
__________________
And here the air that I breathe isn't dead. Trump delenda est.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #52  
Old Posted Sep 28, 2019, 10:33 PM
craigs craigs is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2019
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 62
In the Bay Area, weekday ridership on BART and Muni trains is holding steady, but weekend ridership for both agencies is cratering.

There's little incentive to take the train on weekends. The cost of ride share is similar to BART, and there's no rush hour to gum up the roads. Meanwhile, the absence of hundreds of thousands of commuters means the growing homeless and mentally ill populations are more visible, are a bigger proportion of the people inside the stations and trains. The chaos, crime, and filth stand out more then. It makes a much bigger impact on the experience. So choice riders are abandoning transit on weekends here, spending the same money on a more pleasant ride share experience. I actually expected to see steeper declines.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #53  
Old Posted Sep 29, 2019, 4:39 PM
Quixote's Avatar
Quixote Quixote is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 5,967
Here are the numbers:

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

Why is there such a discrepancy between Wikipedia’s figure for the NYC Subway, which estimates ridership at 5.5 million? DC’s figure also seems too high.

Metro Just Had Its Lowest Ridership Numbers in 20 Years. What’s Going On?
https://wamu.org/story/19/03/11/metr...hats-going-on/
__________________
“Stop being a spectator ... and start being an active participant.”

Stephen Duneier
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #54  
Old Posted Sep 29, 2019, 4:54 PM
Quixote's Avatar
Quixote Quixote is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 5,967
As for LA, the Blue Line fully reopens next month and the improvements will shave 7 minutes (they’re trying to get it to 10) off the end-to-end travel time.

Crenshaw Line opens in 2020 (LAX people mover and the station connection in 2023); Regional Connector 2022; Purple Line extension phase 1 2023, phase 2 2025, phase 3 2027; Gold Line Foothill Extension phase 2B 2026; etc. That in conjunction with planned additional/improved Metrolink service should help offset and reverse declining trends.

And apart from ridesharing services and gentrification, Metro’s a poorly run agency who made the stupid decision to reduce frequencies across the board. They make stupid decision after stupid decision that alienates patrons, yet are clueless as to why ridership has declined.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #55  
Old Posted Sep 29, 2019, 5:01 PM
Quixote's Avatar
Quixote Quixote is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 5,967
I just started a new job that has me commuting by light rail, heavy rail, and express bus. Super convenient, even if the door-to-door time is about 90 minutes (driving wouldn’t be any faster). Without looking at the numbers, you’d get the sense that ridership is as healthy as ever.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #56  
Old Posted Sep 29, 2019, 6:35 PM
Nouvellecosse's Avatar
Nouvellecosse Nouvellecosse is online now
Volatile Pacivist
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 5,877
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quixote View Post
Here are the numbers:

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

Why is there such a discrepancy between Wikipedia’s figure for the NYC Subway, which estimates ridership at 5.5 million? DC’s figure also seems too high.

Metro Just Had Its Lowest Ridership Numbers in 20 Years. What’s Going On?
https://wamu.org/story/19/03/11/metr...hats-going-on/
Wikipedia cites the MTA link that measures in terms of linked trips. The APTA always uses (or at least intends to use)* unlinked trips. This means that if someone starts a trip on one line and transfers to a second, that's counted as two rides. If they transfer twice their trip is counted as three rides. Not surprisingly, ridership measured as unlinked is always higher than linked trips.

* I say intends to use because there is the odd error in which transit agencies report linked trips to the APTA who publishes the figures as unlinked. This happened recently with the Toronto system which created confusion when the ridership figure suddenly jumped by over 30% between successive reports when the error was caught and corrected.
__________________
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." - George Bernard Shaw
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #57  
Old Posted Sep 29, 2019, 7:08 PM
SIGSEGV's Avatar
SIGSEGV SIGSEGV is offline
>~< , QED!
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: South Loop, Chicago
Posts: 1,404
Indeed my CTA express bus only seems to get more crowded. But I suspect the vast majorities of the ridership losses are off-peak trips.

Here is a plot I just made of Chicago Uber+Lyft usage vs. hour of week based on the public data dump (this is 7 months of data from November 2018 - June 2019). The color axis / text is showing the fraction of rides starting in that hour (so the integral of this plot is 1).




FYI the total number of rideshare trips over these 7 months is 73.2 million.
__________________
And here the air that I breathe isn't dead. Trump delenda est.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #58  
Old Posted Sep 29, 2019, 7:31 PM
ssiguy ssiguy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: White Rock BC
Posts: 6,861
Outside of the traditional higher transit dependent cities of NY/Bos/Philly/Wash/Chic/SF/LA/Sea, most US cities have pretty lousy transit systems with low ridership levels. Outside of those key cities, that leaves 250 million Americans with, at best, passable transit while most have incredibly bad transit and millions of other urbanites basically none at all.

The reality is that for the most part this reality will NEVER change. Americans love their cars, their independence, and will always view transit as a social service and not an essential one. The US has set up and continue their 20th century transit systems in a 21st century world and are yet somehow surprised that transit levels are falling. The current transit models are not working and it's time that US cities accepted that and changed their model. This kind of alternative transit planning is proactive and provide the best service for their citizens at an affordable price and aren't guided by some blind ideology that just because something use to work 100 years ago will still work today.

For cities with pathetic ridership levels, all the grand transit schemes are a waste of money as they are based upon illusionary hope........the riders will eventually come. This is similar to the grand schemes that some rust belt cities hoping it will turn the tide of population decline which of course they never do. PROACTIVE cities, like Teledo, however have accepted the fact that population decline is a reality and nothing will change that so they are planning their city on that reality and not some far fetched dream that the tide will turn. This way they are saving money and can put those resources to better work to provide superior public services to the citizens they already have and low ridership transit agencies should be doing the same. It takes creative alternative thinking from their city urban and transportation planners and politicians that are willing to put their citizens needs before ribbon cutting ceremonies but , as Toledo shows, it can be done much to the betterment of it's citizens.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #59  
Old Posted Sep 29, 2019, 7:42 PM
SIGSEGV's Avatar
SIGSEGV SIGSEGV is offline
>~< , QED!
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: South Loop, Chicago
Posts: 1,404
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssiguy View Post
Outside of the traditional higher transit dependent cities of NY/Bos/Philly/Wash/Chic/SF/LA/Sea, most US cities have pretty lousy transit systems with low ridership levels. Outside of those key cities, that leaves 250 million Americans with, at best, passable transit while most have incredibly bad transit and millions of other urbanites basically none at all.

The reality is that for the most part this reality will NEVER change. Americans love their cars, their independence, and will always view transit as a social service and not an essential one. The US has set up and continue their 20th century transit systems in a 21st century world and are yet somehow surprised that transit levels are falling. The current transit models are not working and it's time that US cities accepted that and changed their model. This kind of alternative transit planning is proactive and provide the best service for their citizens at an affordable price and aren't guided by some blind ideology that just because something use to work 100 years ago will still work today.

For cities with pathetic ridership levels, all the grand transit schemes are a waste of money as they are based upon illusionary hope........the riders will eventually come. This is similar to the grand schemes that some rust belt cities hoping it will turn the tide of population decline which of course they never do. PROACTIVE cities, like Teledo, however have accepted the fact that population decline is a reality and nothing will change that so they are planning their city on that reality and not some far fetched dream that the tide will turn. This way they are saving money and can put those resources to better work to provide superior public services to the citizens they already have and low ridership transit agencies should be doing the same. It takes creative alternative thinking from their city urban and transportation planners and politicians that are willing to put their citizens needs before ribbon cutting ceremonies but , as Toledo shows, it can be done much to the betterment of it's citizens.
It is certainly possible for a car-dependent city to become a transit city. Calgary is a good example (see e.g. https://www.thetransportpolitic.com/...awling-cities/).
__________________
And here the air that I breathe isn't dead. Trump delenda est.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #60  
Old Posted Sep 29, 2019, 8:39 PM
accord1999 accord1999 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 374
Quote:
Originally Posted by SIGSEGV View Post
It is certainly possible for a car-dependent city to become a transit city. Calgary is a good example (see e.g. https://www.thetransportpolitic.com/...awling-cities/).
Even given its remarkably high light-rail ridership (given population), I wouldn't call Calgary a transit city, given that passenger-trips by car is over 3M/day, roughly ten times that of transit.

And transit ridership also peaked in 2014/2015 due to economic conditions; LRT has recovered back to earlier levels but APTA numbers show unlinked bus trips is still currently down about 11% from peak, with potential to be down further in the rest of the year due to Transit budget cuts implemented this month.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts

Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:49 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.