The Highest Transit Ridership in 57 Years

[finehoe]

In 2013 Americans took 10.7 billion trips on public transportation, which is the highest annual public transit ridership number in 57 years, according to a report released today by the American Public Transportation Association (APTA). This was the eighth year in a row that more than 10 billion trips were taken on public transportation systems nationwide.  While vehicle miles traveled on roads (VMT) went up 0.3 percent, public transportation use in 2013 increased by 1.1 percent.

....  Public transportation systems nationwide – in small, medium, and large communities – saw ridership increases. Some reported all-time high ridership numbers.

http://www.apta.com/mediacenter/pressreleases/2014/Pages/140310_Ridership.aspx

[spuwho]

Thanks Finehoe,

I saw this reported in other media as well.

Looking into those numbers deeper, transit ridership on rail grew at the highest clip, especially light rail.

What lost?  Anything on tires, as buses continue to see declines nationally.

Who wants BRT again? Seems the country is favoring one over another.

[simms3]

^^^Bus systems really only work well in dense places with less convenient options, or in really poor places - basically anywhere people are forced to ride them.

Light rail/streetcars is a sort of Disney-fied transit in most places.  It's used moreso to spur "infill" and economic development and allow for cool new urbanist places to pop up or dilapidated neighborhoods to clean up, but most light rail systems are by no means "necessary" in the grand scheme of their cities, in terms of purely getting people around.

It requires an even higher density to make for a light/heavy rail transit system that is born, used, expanded, and maintained out of pure necessity rather than for economic development.

For instance, I can name a few systems (bus and rail) that are absolutely necessary simply for moving people around within their respective cities.  The cities themselves would cease to exist without them.

Every day in SF there are 223,200 light rail boardings, 509,200 bus boardings, and if we must count them, 22,800 cable car boardings, for a total of 755,200 un-linked boardings (excl BART and other agencies) in a city of roughly 840,000 people.

The city would be *crushed* with a lesser transit system, and frankly needs one at least twice as good as the current.  My morning commute usually involves 1-2-3 too-packed buses going by before I can catch one that can fit me.  They have to have line/queue control for BART and MUNI Metro because they get too packed.  The other option is owning/driving a car in America's most expensive city where 1 million people live in 40-50 sq mi and there are no highways.

However, Charlotte's LYNX carries 16,500 a day on a pretty lengthy line (9.6 miles), in a city of roughly 790,000.  It has spurred new apartments and provided an option for people living along the line in those new apartments, but it is by no means necessary and congestion there would not know the difference between having LYNX and not having LYNX.

So when discussing bus ridership, it really depends on the type of city one lives in.

Most of the rapidly growing sunbelt cities have been averse from the get-go, and are nowhere near being "crowded" yet, but as they grow, they are still accommodating the automobile (garages, road improvements, new highways/added lanes, etc).  It's SUPER convenient, cheap, and easy to have a car in most cities in America.  In a place like Boston or SF, it's a different story.  Not only are both cities replacing street lanes with bike and bus lanes, both cities are mandating the construction of new units without parking.  Both cities also no room for outward expansion, and so get more crowded, and usually more crowded = more city traffic and higher expenses, especially to own a car.  But at the same time, there is very little rail expansion - so more people ride the bus, not less.  Tale of opposite types of cities.

[finehoe]

Apparently commuters in DC are foregoing rail for buses and bikes:

Even as the region's population has boomed, Metro ridership dropped last year — down to 2005 levels. Washington-area residents are teleworking more than ever, and when they do go to the office, they're more likely to get there by bus or bike than they used to.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/dr-gridlock/wp/2014/10/09/metros-biggest-short-term-problems-in-3-charts/

[Ocklawaha]

One shudders to think what a mess San Francisco, Boston, Philadelphia, etc. would be had they not started laying railroad track when they hit the half million (or so) mark. Actually 300K in NYC by 1840, having added the first rail shortly before. Philadelphia in 1830 with only 80,000 and Boston 177K in 1860 having laid track in 1856.

Jacksonville, Charlotte, OKC, Portland, etc. are the Boston, NYC and SF of the next hundred years and its time to get on board or quit the race.

[peestandingup]

Apparently commuters in DC are foregoing rail for buses and bikes:

Even as the region's population has boomed, Metro ridership dropped last year — down to 2005 levels. Washington-area residents are teleworking more than ever, and when they do go to the office, they're more likely to get there by bus or bike than they used to.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/dr-gridlock/wp/2014/10/09/metros-biggest-short-term-problems-in-3-charts/

Its still chaos though (which may be why more people are avoiding it) & recently I saw many train cars that you literally couldn't fit anymore people in them. Its not the semi-pleasant experience these days that I remember from a few years back.

The Metro has some other issues though like the cars starting to show age (they're carpeted on the inside so it often stinks & its stained all to hell). Also the stations haven't been upgraded at all in many years, which means many times card readers simply don't work, the place to buy fares is always a pain (sometimes works, sometimes not), escalators often out of service, elevators stink of piss & can be death traps. One of my wife's students actually got stuck in one, called for help on the elevator phone & surprise! No one on the other end. It also shuts down at midnight during the week. Keep in mind DC fancies themselves as a "world class city" too these days, and has the rental rates to prove it.

Oh, and they raised their rates too recently pretty significantly. All that, plus better biking infrastructure & telecommuting = sign me up for one of the people who avoided the Metro like the plague. Being without a car there, you'll use it & use it often, but you won't like it after a while.

[simms3]

DC's system is still nicer, cleaner, and newer than many systems.  Rents are also a good bit below NYC and SF (even Boston), and most of the product is new/luxury.

DC residents have it A LOT better than they may realize.  BART not only has carpeted trains, it has CLOTH seats!  SF is also A LOT more crowded and dirty.  NYC even worse.  DC Metro is also at least effective, goes places, and is less expensive than MUNI Metro and a lot of other systems.

SF is an example of a city that needs even better transit than DC, and yet has transit half as effective as what's in DC.

But still, DC is definitely in the bucket of increasing population corresponds to an even faster rate of increase of transit, even if transit is not expanded/improved.  It's such a necessity there.

[thelakelander]

Speaking of DC commuters, biking, walking, and bus ridership is most likely up, due to the city rapidly gentrifying over the last decade.  No need to hop on the metro if you job is now within walking our biking distance or you're living in a neighborhood (like Adams Morgan) that's not adequately served by the Metro.

Oh, and they raised their rates too recently pretty significantly. All that, plus better biking infrastructure & telecommuting = sign me up for one of the people who avoided the Metro like the plague. Being without a car there, you'll use it & use it often, but you won't like it after a while.

I've never lived in DC but over the last 15 years, I've been up there quite often, sometime for extended periods of time.  I've noticed the rate increases too.  When I'm there, I don't use the Metro as often as I used to in the late 90s and early 2000s. I still like the system, I'm just more cost conscious now, so walking and even driving and paying for parking (when there's more than 1 person), is cheaper. This leaves a larger portion of my budgeted income for those trips to be spent on supporting local businesses.

[tufsu1]

Apparently commuters in DC are foregoing rail for buses and bikes:

that was actually the plan.  Metro had become overcrowded at times and, to my knowledge, is still the only transit system in the US charging higher fares during peak periods.  They can't add trains because the single tunnel through the core is already maxed out with trains running every 3 minutes.  They also can't add cars as peak period trains are already using every inch of the station platforms.  Getting folks in the city to use local transit (bus and soon streetcar) as well as bikes will free up capacity on Metro to accommodate some regional growth.

[thelakelander]

Hmm, so what they are investing in is a true multimodal and seamlessly integrated transit network. Interesting concept.  I wonder if this is applicable to Jacksonville.....

[peestandingup]

DC's system is still nicer, cleaner, and newer than many systems.  Rents are also a good bit below NYC and SF (even Boston), and most of the product is new/luxury.

DC residents have it A LOT better than they may realize.  BART not only has carpeted trains, it has CLOTH seats!  SF is also A LOT more crowded and dirty.  NYC even worse.  DC Metro is also at least effective, goes places, and is less expensive than MUNI Metro and a lot of other systems.

SF is an example of a city that needs even better transit than DC, and yet has transit half as effective as what's in DC.

But still, DC is definitely in the bucket of increasing population corresponds to an even faster rate of increase of transit, even if transit is not expanded/improved.  It's such a necessity there.

It def is a necessity there, and I'm glad its there. It just needs tweaked & all the little things add up fast to make for a not-so-great experience. I think a lot of people (esp on Met Jax) see mass transit up north as the end all be all, but its still a pain in the butt in many ways. I found myself walking/biking most of the time there just because of the freedom, its way cheaper & I could go at my own pace. One day I even walked from Georgetown to Shaw (which isn't close), stopping in between at Dupont Circle, and it didn't really feel like a long haul. I feel like with the amount of money they're charging to live there, the money flowing through the city & the fare increases, they could just make it better is all (esp the little things).

And it def doesn't go "everywhere" either. Yes, its expansive, but it doesn't hit as many key places as you'd like (or better yet WHERE you'd like it). And outside the District, many times the stations aren't in good pedestrian environments. The further out you go, the worse it is for this. The National Zoo for example. The station is quite a clip from the actual Zoo entrance, uphill, highway-like setting, etc. And if you have kids, forget about using the Metro full time. You WILL need a car, or big pockets for Uber. All that plus shutting down at midnight on weekdays means its not something you want to rely on 100% of the time. NYC's is lightyears ahead as far as these things go IMHO.

BTW, I believe DC is now the most expensive city to live in the US: http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2014/04/24/district-of-columbia-the-nations-most-expensive-place-to-live/

[simms3]

^^^That compared DC to entire other states (and even then it was close, though not sure how CA home prices alone don't make it the most expensive).  DC as a city is by no means more expensive than NYC or SF, not even close.  The average home price in METRO SF is almost 2x as high as in the District of Columbia, and SF's median rent is equivalent to NYC's, both of which are well ahead of the rest.


Source

The Full Report breaks rents down by neighborhood for the top cities, and oddly Chicago was included and DC was not.  But NYC has the most expensive individual neighborhoods (highest is NoHo with $4,239 per bedroom all bedrooms, followed by SF which has its highest in SoMa at $3,516 per bedroom all bedrooms).  Of the top 20 most expensive neighborhoods in the country to rent a 1 BR, NYC has 13, SF has 5, Honolulu and Miami each have 1.  Then you start seeing Boston a bit before you get to any DC neighborhoods.

Not a lot of "new"/luxury apts in SF - so often you're paying that for an older shoebox, as opposed to DC, which is filled with brand new luxury product.

$770K metro median home price for SF, $900K for SJ, and $404K for DC, city of SF is > $1M ($1.3M or thereabouts, and Manhattan is much more expensive than SF, DC the district still < $500K) (Source = NAR)

I'm pretty sure BART (also distance based, but no "minimum", however, much greater distances) and MUNI fares (fixed, but significantly higher minimums and no difference between peak/off-peak) are also higher than DC Metro Fares, and neither system is as good.

Anyway, I digress.  Both cities NEED their bus systems.

[finehoe]

^^^That compared DC to entire other states (and even then it was close, though not sure how CA home prices alone don't make it the most expensive).  DC as a city is by no means more expensive than NYC or SF, not even close.  The average home price in METRO SF is almost 2x as high as in the District of Columbia, and SF's median rent is equivalent to NYC's, both of which are well ahead of the rest.

They're comparing housing-related expenses (utilities, furnishings and equipment), not just home prices:



http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/local/wp/2014/10/13/its-more-expensive-to-live-in-d-c-than-new-york-study-says/

[simms3]

Yea, well I work in RE as a generalist (multiple product types, investment strategies, and markets) and I love and need statistics and trends/projections from official sources for my job, an this is not one anyone is using.  There is something off, because there is no way DC is more expensive than NYC or SF by nearly any of those metrics, and when the housing costs themselves (rent/mortgage) are that far beyond any other city, and are the huge chunk of change in the items measured above, there is no way a difference in utilities or a slight increase in the price of furniture will change that.

The difference between most expensive and least expensive in the above chart is less than 2.0x, which alone tells me we're missing something here.  San Diego and Baltimore are also NOT #4 and #5 - although with housing costs factored in, San Diego is more expensive than DC.  Rents no (not a terribly huge difference though), but mortgages YES (big difference in housing costs).

I digress, regarding transit, DC needs its buses and I would predict as the city grows, bus ridership will grow.  Not everyone can live right near a DC Metro station.

[coredumped]

How does that stack up to the population 57 years ago as a percentage?