John, et. all,
I've been a quiet subscriber of the list for a few months now and had some Chicago
data that might be useful for comparison purposes. While I have been primarily engaged in
CTA market research for the last 14+ years, my job here is now changing so that Census
related issues are much more important and so I'll probably be contributing from time
to time - more often with questions than with data I'm afraid.
1) It is not necessarily the case that the share of Transit Dependant Riders has grown in
every market - in Chicago, our best source of data indicates that CTA's share of
Transit Dependent Customers has fallen from 49% in 1997, to 32% in 2000, that is, 68% of
CTA customers can now be considered choice customers (Source: CTA Technical Report
MR01-09, Traveler Behavior and Attitudes Survey, CTA Riders and Non-Riders, July, 2001.
Note: this was an RDD telephone travel survey of 2,768 residents (Riders and non-riders)
in the CTA Service Area the fourth in a series conducted in 1988, 1990, 1993 and 2000).
2) We have seen a change in the mix of frequent (5+days per week) vs. infrequent (1-4 days
per week) customers among our regular customers. >From 1997 - 2002 the share of
Infrequent Customers grew from 42% to 49% of those who rode at least once per week
(Source: Technical Report MR-02-05, 2001 CTA Customer Satisfaction Survey, April 2002.
Note: those who rode CTA less than once a week were not included in this sample. N= 2,505,
Stratified RDD biennial telephone survey.)
3) I believe that a mix of factors including an improved automated fare system which
allows many more fare options(including better counting and tracking of fare types),
customer satisfaction focused service improvements, service improvements (rail line
improvements, limited stop express bus services and employer based bus services) and
transit marketing programs (New Residents Program, Transit Benefits Program, UPASS)
designed to replace customers lost to turnover and develop new riding habits, are
responsible for reversing decades of ridership loss and causing substantial ridership
growth between 1997 and 2001 (8.5%). A "good chunk" of this growth has been in
off-peak discretionary riding and/or riding by occasional customers.
a) Note that CTA's adoption of its Transit Card automated fare system resulted in
many beneficial impacts too many to insert here - the share of uncounted customers has
certainly improved as have revenues - many more types of fares can be offered and
validated by the system (relieving the operator of the need to do so in many cases - much
better tracking of fare card usage by type - especially for daily, weekly or monthly
passes is now available - customers accept the accuracy of electronically time stamped
transfers and argue less with operators - and most importantly - pass users of many kinds
now make more discretionary off-peak trips for other purposes resulting in an increase in
infrequent choice customers on our system.
b) The implementation of the CTA Smart Card - coming soon - should have additional
benefits.
4) The census is a very valuable source of data - but does have weaknesses when used for
transit planning. In addition to points made by others:
a) By being taken only once every 10 years (as prescribed by law) interim trends of
growth and loss are not observed. How tragic it would be if CTA (and other agencies like
it), after finally reversing the trend of decades of ridership loss would lose some % of
capital funding eligibility over the next decade that would have allow it to continue to
grow and rebuild its market share.
b) The census records activity on one non-random day, April 1, rather than a number of
days throughout the seasons of a year. Transit riding patterns and habits are influenced
by very local phenomena - weather conditions, traffic developments, local economic
fluctuations, etc., which can impact mode choice decisions in the week before the census.
c) It seems to me that these weaknesses, and other weaknesses that those more expert
on Census Data than I could provide, suggest that better, more frequent national sampling
of travel data and household auto/transit mode shares are needed than can be provided by
the census. Whether the cost of doing so nationwide, with sample sizes large enough that
data that would be useful on regional and local levels is worth the benefits is arguable.
Clearly I would favor such a project. In saying this I am not attempting to put down the
Census - just point out that it may be that there may be a need to push for other more
frequent data sources using sampling methods rather than a full count and the long/short
form.
5) Responding to Ed Christopher's point, our TBAS surveys referenced above indicate
that while the share of trips to or from work in the CTA service area made by non-CTA
Customers has been relatively stable from 1990 (40%) to 2000 (39%), work trips grew
significantly among Frequent CTA Customers (44% in 1990 to 55% in 2001) and Infrequent CTA
Customers (29% in 1990 to 39% in 2000, 2000 Nw=5,769 trips). (Note that a PDF file of this
report is available on request.) This suggests growth among work Trip use over the decade
by Transit Customers but no change for the general population. Note also that results for
CTA are likely to be very different than for non-urban systems, only 8% of households in
our service area say they have never used CTA.)
I hope that this information is helpful. Please contact me if you would like a copy of
our TBAS report.
Peter J. Foote
PFoote(a)TransitChicago.com
Coordinator
Market Research/Resource Planning
Strategic Planning Department
Planning Division
Chicago Transit Authority
120 N. Racine Avenue
Chicago, IL 60607
(312) 733-7000 x 6840 (Voice)
(312) 432 - 7108 (Fax)
****************************************************************************
****************************************************************************
*******************************************
Unless otherwise stated, the views expressed are those of the author and not
those of the Chicago Transit Authority.
****************************************************************************
****************************************************************************
*******************************************
http://www.TransitChicago.com
CTA CUSTOMER SERVICE HOTLINE
1-888-YOUR-CTA
RTA Travel Information
836-7000
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gardner, John F" <GardnerJF(a)dot.state.sc.us>
To: <ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net>
Sent: Monday, July 08, 2002 1:58 PM
Subject: RE: [CTPP] Reconciling Census Transit Commuters with Ridership Statistics
Additional possible reasons for the APTA/FTA reported
growth in total
ridership vs. unchanged census count of transit commuters:
1) Because transit is losing mode share, one assumes the remaining users
are more transit dependent than in 1990 and therefore more likely to use
transit for ALL trips, not just work trips.
2) Aging of the population results in long-term riders continuing to ride,
but no longer making work trips (retired).
3) ADA accessibility requirements have made transit more accessible to
disabled persons, whose riding pattern may include a smaller than average
proportion of work trips.
4) Most transit systems now use electronic fareboxes that improve passenger
count reliability; fewer systems had these in 1990. Some undercounting of
passengers may have occurred previously -- drivers had to punch mechanical
counters, or even less reliable methods were used. Some of the reported
growth in total ridership may result from more accurate passenger counts.
-----Original Message-----
From: ed christopher [mailto:edc@berwyned.com]
Sent: Monday, July 08, 2002 1:33 PM
Cc: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net
Subject: Re: [CTPP] Reconciling Census Transit Commuters with Ridership
Statistics
As for Chucks comments I believe that he was actually searching to gain a
better understanding into the trip purpose side of mode
split issue. Is the the work trip declining in its mode share? The answer
of course in not in any census data.