Public Transportation and Smart Growth

marmar

(78,025 posts) Fri Mar 21, 2014, 08:58 AM Mar 2014

Recent Trends in Bus and Rail Ridership

from the Transport Politic blog:

Recent Trends in Bus and Rail Ridership
Yonah Freemark

In researching the article I wrote last week for the Atlantic Cities on bus rapid transit (BRT), I wanted to provide a basic piece of evidence that offered support for the idea that typical bus operations were not offering the sort of service that attracted riders effectively. My sense (hardly a unique perspective, of course) was that bus services in cities around the country are often simply too slow and too unreliable for many people to choose them over automobile alternatives. Rail, particularly in the form of frequent and relatively fast light and heavy rail, may be more effective in attracting riders, but so might, the article hypothesizes, BRT services, which provide many of the service improvements offered by rail.

To provide such evidence, I compared ridership growth between 2001 and 2012 on urban bus and rail services on the ten U.S. transit networks that had rail routes in 2001 and did not expand them significantly during that period, as shown in the following chart. I excluded cities with rapidly growing rail networks, such as Los Angeles or Portland, under the presumption that the installation of a new rail line may result in a considerable shift from bus to rail simply because of changes in service patterns resulting from the opening of that line (e.g., riders may be encouraged to take rail rather than bus because certain bus routes are eliminated or re-routed with the opening).

The chart’s data — based on a limited sample of information — show that nine of ten urban rail and bus systems saw higher ridership gains along their rail routes than their bus routes (or less loss). The only exception noted here is Buffalo, whose bus routes saw a higher jump than the city’s light rail line. The conclusion we can take from this compelling, if limited, data point is that rail services do seem to be providing a greater benefit to passengers than buses do.*

Similarly, as the following chart demonstrates, when evaluating growth of ridership by mode as a share of overall system growth, the evidence suggests that rail lines, new or not, are more effective in contributing to building overall transit ridership than bus services (a slightly different metric than the above chart, which simply compares ridership by mode in 2001 with same-mode ridership in 2012). Of the 27 systems shown here, the rail lines of 22 of them contributed a higher proportion of ridership growth than the bus lines. ..................(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2014/03/03/recent-trends-in-bus-and-rail-ridership/

3 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Recent Trends in Bus and Rail Ridership (Original Post) marmar Mar 2014 OP

i can beat the local octa bus on my ebike rafeh1 Mar 2014 #1

In 2000 (the latest I can find data for) more people WALK to work then rode a bike happyslug Mar 2014 #3

Pittsburgh's situation is tied is with a long tradition of walking to work happyslug Mar 2014 #2

rafeh1

(385 posts)

1. i can beat the local octa bus on my ebike

Reply to marmar (Original post)

Fri Mar 21, 2014, 11:58 AM

Mar 2014

pic of ebike

click on closed caption to see real time speed. see me passing bus after 2:20 min

happyslug

(14,779 posts)

3. In 2000 (the latest I can find data for) more people WALK to work then rode a bike

Reply to rafeh1 (Reply #1)

Wed Mar 26, 2014, 08:33 AM

Mar 2014

2.6% of people living in the Los Angles Metropolitan area (which includes Orange County) walked to work, as opposed to .6% who rode a bicycle. Bicyclist do not even come near bus transportation at 4.3% of all trips. Through biking beats out subway and other rail transportation methods, which only .3% of the population use.

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/census_issues/ctpp/data_products/journey_to_work/jtw4.cfm

happyslug

(14,779 posts)

2. Pittsburgh's situation is tied is with a long tradition of walking to work

Reply to marmar (Original post)

Wed Mar 26, 2014, 08:06 AM

Mar 2014

Now, the LRV system in Pittsburgh is one of the slowest LRV system in the country. It is slow for it follows the last two streetcar lines in Pittsburgh (Both built around 1905 on their own right of way).

On the other hand, the LRV system goes through a heavily populated suburban areas, with few other choices of transportation. During Rush hour, most of the time. the LRV system is faster getting to downtown Pittsburgh then driving a car. It is also faster then walking, for the area within walking distance to downtown Pittsburgh is bypassed by the Pittsburgh Transit Tunnel. Thus people who can walk to town, never took the LRV (or if they did it was the 49 Arlington Avenue Route, a route AROUND the transit tunnel, Avenue Route. The Arlington Route was cut out several years ago by the Transit authority when it decided to cut back service, thus any lost walkers were lost years ago not over the last year).

On the other hand the #2 and #3 transit stops in Pittsburgh are Downtown Pittsburgh and the Oakland section of Pittsburgh (where most of the Collages, Universities and Hospitals are). These are within biking and walking distance of each other (I have done it). I can see people wanting to save some money by taking the extra time to walk or bike to work. Pittsburgh always had a high percentage of people who walked to work.

In 1990, 5% of Pittsburghers walked to work, a percentage only exceeded by Boston, at 5.2%, Philadelphia at 5.3% and New York City at 6.7% (Through by 2000 all four cities were the top three by percentage, by New York had dropped to 5.6%, Philadelphia 3.9%, to Boston to 4.1% and Pittsburgh to 3.6%

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/census_issues/ctpp/data_products/journey_to_work/jtw4.cfm

A report done by the American Public Transportation Association that found the following in 2004:

If transit service were no longer available, 55.9 percent of transit riders would make the same trip by automobile or other personal vehicle: 23.9 percent would drive themselves, 22.1 percent would get a ride with someone else, and 9.9 percent would take a taxi as shown on Figure 10 and Table 20.

Besides the resulting increase in traffic, there would also be a substantial reduction in mobility
because 21.6 of transit riders would not be able to make their trip. Walking is the alternative travel means for 15.5 percent of riders, 3.2 percent would use another transit system in areas where there is more than one transit system, and 3.9 percent would find another mode of transportation such as bicycles

http://www.apta.com/resources/statistics/Documents/transit_passenger_characteristics_text_5_29_2007.pdf

21.6 % of all transit users, if transit was eliminated would cut out trips, 15.5% would walk, 3.9% would use other means of transportation, including bicycles.

Thus the alternative to using Mass transit is to eliminated the trip or to walk for 35% of all transit users and this is higher for buses then for rail:

Sample Group ----------------------Auto------ Alternate------------------Not
--------------------Walk----Drive ----Ride-------Transit------Taxi-------MakeTrip-----Otherl
Rail Modes---------11.5%---40.2%----14.4%------ .0%----- 6.8%------ 17.8%---------2.3%
Roadway Modes----17.8%---14.3%----26.6%------0.9%-----11.7%------ 23.8%------- 4.8%
Total --------------15.5%---23.9%----22.1%------3.2%------9.9%-------21.6%--------3.9%

Thus the best explanation for Pittsburgh, is that since the 2008 economic collapse less people are taking the bus, for their either decide NOT to make the trip or walked. I think the people who said "Auto Ride" instead of drive, are people who do NOT own a car but see no other way to get to work (and thus may end up walking or not making trips but something they did not think they would do so Auto Ride sounded to them like a better option then walk, but then ended up walking).

Given the proximity of Pittsburgh, Oakland, Downtown, Pittsburgh North side and South side, walking is a viable option in those areas and between those areas, and that is also the area with the most bus trips.

I suspect similar situation in Cleveland and Atlanta (thus the drop in both rail and bus trips in both areas).

The other areas, we have to remember most LRV systems were build to get richer people (not the rich, but people richer then the poor) to take mass transit. Buses were looked down at, so it was decided to provide those areas LRVs instead. New York Chicago and even Philadelphia are in a third category, one where the rail actually reaches into the suburbs and bring people into the urban core. These three cities may have LRVs but mostly rely on heavy rail i.e. subways in the case of New York City, LRVs with access to a subway in Philadelphia.

Notice also the difference between rail uses and "road" users of mass transit, Rail users first choice is to drive (40.2%) followed by not making the trip (17.4%). Users of non-rail systems first choice is basically get a friend to drive them (26.6%), they second choice is not to make the trip (23.8%). Thus 57.6% of rail users would either drive or NOT make the trip, while 50.4 % of "Bus" users would either have to look for someone else with a vehicle to transport them or not make the trip.

I should mention I suspect "Other Auto" i.e. get a friend to drive them, sounds better to a lot of people then not making the trip, thus is another way of saying will not make the trip. If we use that rule, 32.2% of rail riders will NOT make the trip, while 50,5% of bus riders will not make the trip.

Reply to this discussion