Passenger Trains > Public Transit for Others

"More than eighteen years ago, the Onion reported that “98 percent of commuters favor public transit for others” so that everyone else can drive on uncongested roads. That hasn’t changed, as in 2016 Los Angeles overwhelming voted for measure M, which will spend $120 billion on transit improvements, yet ridership there has dropped from 600 million trips in 2016 to 550 million annual trips in 2018.To find out why this is happening, UCLA researcher Michael Manville, an associate professor of urban planning, did a survey of 1,450 Los Angeles-area voters and found out the Onion was right: very few voters supported the transit tax because they expected to ride transit. Instead, nearly 70 percent of supporters voted for it because they thought it would relieve congestion and reduce air pollution...."http://ti.org/antiplanner/?p=15575
(Warning- contains citations & facts)

Side note- my wife as reading aloud sumaries of a few new stories this morning. One was
Rail ridership dips as Metro loses passengers for fifth straight year
https://la.curbed.com/2019/2/1/18204376/los-angeles-transit-ridership-down-trains-buses

I asked her "why do you think that is?"  Immediate answer: "It's not safe". Bam.

I think, in large part, this is correct. Much transit in large American cities isn't safe. Especially for women & after dark.
 

Another reason for the drop of ridership in LA. Gas is below $4 a gallon.
$4 dollar gas seems to be point when people feel the need to get out of their cars.
At least in Southern California.

Public transit also suffers greatly from anarchic urban planning that isn't suitable for it, an miserable funding in many places. But for recent ridership drops... how about the subdized rides Uber and Lyft provide that have wooed away a segment. If those services were actually charging the real cost of the rides - or the drivers weren't being hoodwinked about it - I doubt they would have taken so much market share.

Duna Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "More than eighteen years ago, the Onion reported
> that “98 percent of commuters favor public
> transit for others” so that everyone else can
> drive on uncongested roads. That hasn’t changed,
> as in 2016 Los Angeles overwhelming voted for
> measure M, which will spend $120 billion on
> transit improvements, yet ridership there has
> dropped from 600 million trips in 2016 to 550
> million annual trips in 2018.To find out why this
> is happening, UCLA researcher Michael Manville, an
> associate professor of urban planning, did a
> survey of 1,450 Los Angeles-area voters and found
> out the Onion was right: very few voters supported
> the transit tax because they expected to ride
> transit. Instead, nearly 70 percent of supporters
> voted for it because they thought it would relieve
> congestion and reduce air
> pollution...."http://ti.org/antiplanner/?p=15575
> (Warning- contains citations & facts)
>
> Side note- my wife as reading aloud sumaries of a
> few new stories this morning. One was
> Rail ridership dips as Metro loses passengers for
> fifth straight year
> https://la.curbed.com/2019/2/1/18204376/los-angele
> s-transit-ridership-down-trains-buses
>
> I asked her "why do you think that is?" 
> Immediate answer: "It's not safe". Bam.
>
> I think, in large part, this is correct. Much
> transit in large American cities isn't safe.
> Especially for women & after dark.
>  

Not safe? I'd bet the chances of being hurt or killed are MUCH greater in a car vs being a victim of a random act of violence on public transit.

Posted from Android

It's so much safer driving on those jammed freeways.
When we lived in DC we drove to work and we also used Metro.
I had a car accident on the freeway but never had any problems on the Metro.
The cost and time was about the same and we weren't shaking when we arrived at home or work from riding the Metro...

Bill Deaver
Tehachapi, CA

MojaveBill Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I had a car accident on the freeway but never had
> any problems on the Metro.

Accidents? How about road rage and freeway shootings? Opponents of public transit will NEVER mention that.

The insinuation is that public transit --> civic decay. NOPE. Our civic decay will soldier on with or without public transit, but that's too depressing for general consumption. I think it's better if we just blame public transit. :-)

Wimps fear driving or riding in POVs. What's this country deteriorating to?

mdogg Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Duna Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------

> > Immediate answer: "It's not safe". Bam.
> >
> > I think, in large part, this is correct. Much
> > transit in large American cities isn't safe.
> > Especially for women & after dark.
> >  
>
> Not safe? I'd bet the chances of being hurt or
> killed are MUCH greater in a car vs being a victim
> of a random act of violence on public transit.

Yes, that's true as far as I know.  But there is a perception that transit in L.A. is not safe.
While I have not experienced outright violence, more than once I have ridden trains where loud, rude passengers are on board hassling others.
I can understand why people wouldn't want to put up with that.
In other situations there are people blasting music.
The L.A. Metro will get you around relatively inexpensively, but it is not always an enjoyable ride.

Crime on public transit is merely a reflection of the neighborhoods they run through. It starts on the street. There is also such a thing as muggings in parking decks after hours, car jackings, road rage, and oridinary car accidents. One's car is not an armored tank. 

Amused by all the usual negativity, when the number of cities and metro area adding or expanding rail transit in various forms continues to grow, including in western and sunbelt metros whose GOP dominated governments used to be wholly opposed to rail transit.

Just compare it to what it was like 50 years ago and now. NO comparison.

Art House

aehouse Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Amused by all the usual negativity, when the
> number of cities and metro area adding or
> expanding rail transit in various forms continues
> to grow, including in western and sunbelt metros
> whose GOP dominated governments used to be wholly
> opposed to rail transit.
>
> Just compare it to what it was like 50 years ago
> and now. NO comparison.
>
> Art House


Indeed no comparisom. There is FAR less transit use, per capita or per passenger-mile, than 50 years ago.

But railfans care about trains, not moving people, so more trains (or buses), even if empty = good.

casco17 Wrote:

> While I have not experienced outright violence,
> more than once I have ridden trains where loud,
> rude passengers are on board hassling others.
> I can understand why people wouldn't want to put
> up with that.
> In other situations there are people blasting
> music.

Hmmm, on the roads, loud, rude people are driving 3,000+ lb. automobiles which are much more effective in displaying their rudeness.  Quite a number of those vehicles have nice loud mufflers or blaring stereos so that they can share their ambiance with fellow motorists, as well.

Here's the deal:  nearly a century of brainwashing and propaganda have conditioned Americans to accept any and every negative consequence of the automobile and highways without question, while any negative point, no matter how far-fetched or minor, about mass transit (or any passenger rail, for that matter) immediately becomes a justification to dismiss it as a viable mode of passenger transit.  And, yes, despite all that has been done to try to improve highway safety (at astronomical costs), driving on the public roads still ranks not far below being in a war zone in likelihood of being seriously injured or killed.
 

Bottom line is when gas is cheep they flee. Very simple the idea its less safe is BS its not safe to be in certain areas no matter what time it is. Any woman or child in those areas alone are prime targets.  Rapid transit was not brought into most areas planning until after they were populated and then there was no place for it where needed.
 The stupid idea is more freeways more roads but that just leads to more congestion and more cars on the road.
 

WW Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> casco17 Wrote:
>
> > While I have not experienced outright violence,
> > more than once I have ridden trains where loud,
> > rude passengers are on board hassling others.
> > I can understand why people wouldn't want to
> put
> > up with that.
> > In other situations there are people blasting
> > music.
>
> Hmmm, on the roads, loud, rude people are driving
> 3,000+ lb. automobiles which are much more
> effective in displaying their rudeness.  Quite a
> number of those vehicles have nice loud mufflers
> or blaring stereos so that they can share their
> ambiance with fellow motorists, as well.
>
> Here's the deal:  nearly a century of
> brainwashing and propaganda have conditioned
> Americans to accept any and every negative
> consequence of the automobile and highways without
> question, while any negative point, no matter how
> far-fetched or minor, about mass transit (or any
> passenger rail, for that matter) immediately
> becomes a justification to dismiss it as a viable
> mode of passenger transit.  And, yes, despite all
> that has been done to try to improve highway
> safety (at astronomical costs), driving on the
> public roads still ranks not far below being in a
> war zone in likelihood of being seriously injured
> or killed.
>  

Like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1wlV0X7CJM
 

An occasional Bernhard Goetz will even the score.

Posted from Android

I support public transit in part because I want it to be there for when I lose my driving license.
Maybe more people would use it if they knew how to buy fares, it is usually very complicated for a first time rider in my experience; they cater to regular riders who are smart phone savy.
An almost secret aid to riding transit is the map function on some phones.  They give highway, pedestrian, and transit routes when asked.  The transit navigation will show the closest stop to your location and the times of the next arrivals.  I have used it in US and European cities.

In south Florida, homeless people colonize off ramps and major intersections.

Some of the same people have been at the same intersections for years.

Posted from Android

i think people know the small risk of being involved in a vehicle collision BUT i also think people feel SAFE and in control while driving their LOCKED vehicles.

NOT feeling safe is obviously being the victim of a crime but NOT feeling safe is also being INTIMIDATED without a specific act of violence committed against a person.  where are the statistics that currently document the circumstances where people are INTIMIDATED? 

what about the person that walks through the public transit station to their train or anywhere in public while looking a people doing drugs?  that is INTIMIDATING to a lot of people.

what about the citizen (male of female) on public transit or anywhere in public that is subjected to a person playing loud music on purpose in order to disturb others and won't turn the music down until a person of authority tells them to?  that is INTIMIDATING to some people too.

how about fare evaders that hide in bathrooms of commuter cars until their stop?  some people would also be INTIMIDATED by this. 

what about a group of people that enter public transit or places of business yelling and screaming at passengers/customers just to see the fear on their faces?  sounds like the INTENT to intimidate other passengers/customers to me.

most people will try and avoid places where they could be INTIMIDATED.........

66 



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/02/19 12:51 by goneon66.

Duna Wrote:

> Indeed no comparisom. There is FAR less transit
> use, per capita or per passenger-mile, than 50
> years ago.
>
> But railfans care about trains, not moving people,
> so more trains (or buses), even if empty = good.

Is that so ?

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/10/us/use-of-public-transit-in-us-reaches-highest-level-since-1956-advocates-report.html

"More Americans used buses, trains and subways in 2013 than in any year since 1956 as service improved, local economies grew and travelers increasingly sought alternatives to the automobile for trips within metropolitan areas, the American Public Transportation Association said in a report released on Monday.The trade group said in its annual report that 10.65 billion passenger trips were taken on transit systems during the year, surpassing the post-1950s peak of 10.59 billion in 2008, when gas prices rose to $4 to $5 a gallon.The ridership in 2013, when gas prices were lower than in 2008, undermines the conventional wisdom that transit use rises when those prices exceed a certain threshold, and suggests that other forces are bolstering enthusiasm for public transportation, said Michael Melaniphy, the president of the association."

I didn't think there were that many railfans around. 

NYC subway ridership is now over 6 million, double 40 years ago, with population up only 1 million from 7.5 million. 

Those MARC and VRE train look pretty crowded to me They barley existed 30 years ago. VRE has taken an equivalent of a lane of I-95 worth of traffic. 

 



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 02/02/19 12:09 by joemvcnj.

joemvcnj Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Duna Wrote:
>
> > Indeed no comparisom. There is FAR less transit
> > use, per capita or per passenger-mile, than 50
> > years ago.
> >
> > But railfans care about trains, not moving
> people,
> > so more trains (or buses), even if empty =
> good.
>
> Is that so ?
>
> https://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/10/us/use-of-publi
> c-transit-in-us-reaches-highest-level-since-1956-a
> dvocates-report.html
>
> "More Americans used buses, trains and subways in
> 2013 than in any year since 1956 as service
> improved, local economies grew and travelers
> increasingly sought alternatives to the automobile
> for trips within metropolitan areas, the American
> Public Transportation Association said in a
> report released on Monday.The trade group said in
> its annual report that 10.65 billion passenger
> trips were taken on transit systems during the
> year, surpassing the post-1950s peak of 10.59
> billion in 2008, when gas prices rose to $4 to $5
> a gallon.The ridership in 2013, when gas prices
> were lower than in 2008, undermines the
> conventional wisdom that transit use rises when
> those prices exceed a certain threshold, and
> suggests that other forces are bolstering
> enthusiasm for public transportation, said Michael
> Melaniphy, the president of the association."
>
> I didn't think there were that many railfans
> around. 
>
> NYC subway ridership is now over 6 million, double
> 40 years ago, with population up only 1 million
> from 7.5 million. 
>
> Those MARC and VRE train look pretty crowded to me
> They barley existed 30 years ago. VRE has taken an
> equivalent of a lane of I-95 worth of traffic. 
>
>  

US population has about doubled since 1956. In other words, you (and transit industry lobbyist APTA) failed to normalize to use per capita. Railfans commonly refuse to normalize / use rates and insist on using raw numbers, when it suits them (aka decption)

Transit ridership is down since 2013. Why not present 2017 or 2018 data?

NYC is the exception in the US. It is where transit is doing well. Mostly due to increased employment, not pop.

Check these figs out, NYC dwarfs other US cities, where transit use has dropped overall:
http://www.newgeography.com/content/005255-new-yorks-incredible-subway