The impact of a new rail line, branch or extension on a system's unlinked
trip count depends upon many factors.
In general terms, the implementation of rail systems should generate new
unlinked trips because they tend by nature to draw new customers, including
suburban men, out of their cars. This is especially true when parking fees
in the CBD are high. Links can be lost however, when rail route design
allows former bus riders to save one or more transfers previously made on
their commute.
CTA's Orange line (running diagonally across the grid SW from the Chicago's
Loop) which opened 10/31/93, was a bonanza for Pace suburban bus ridership
for routes connecting to CTA at Midway airport. The line exceeded CTA
ridership expectations in part due to high suburban ridership, but also
resulted in some lost linked trips (not individuals) between bus routes -
and of course a substantial shift from bus to rail.
Limited stop express services can add individuals overall but eliminate the
need for some transfers when they cross over route ends. The X49 for
example, eliminated some transfers (unlinked trips) between routes 49A and
49, however ridership increases and customer satisfaction rose far more than
trips lost.
In Chicago, it is more likely that increases in off-peak discretionary
riding by electronic pass users (30 and 7 day rolling pass markets have
grown substantially since the were re-introduced in the Winter of 1998) are
responsible for a portion of this shift. New York of course had tremendous
ridership growth when the eliminated the 2nd fare required to move from bus
to rail when their Metro Card was used. Check with them, but my guess would
be that they have also had big boosts in off-peak riding, etc stimulated by
having pre-paid media available. DC's Smart Card probably generates many
new rides as well. Could the impact of just these 3 systems be enough to
cause an increase in trips with no new net gain in riders? Once you have a
farecard, even a money card rather than a pass, you are much more inclined
to hop on a bus or train to take a trip. Discounting and the impact of
lowered average fares on ridership through the use of these fare instruments
may also be a factor.
The issue of whether census data questions are complete enough to extract
true mode splits (raised in another thread) is a valid one, especially when
respondents are asked about an entire previous week is a valid one. BUT, I
also think that it is unrealistic to expect more from the Census that can
reasonably be expected.
Reconfiguration of a rail line can cause losses. When the Dan Ryan/Lake and
Howard/Englewood/Jackson Park were realigned 2/1993 to connect the busy
South and North branches in the Red Line and less busy South and West
branches as the Green Line many transfers which had been recorded as
unlinked trips were eliminated with no real reduction in persons (average
trip lengths expanded). Reconstruction of a rail line can also cause
losses. The decision to close the Green line for reconstruction rather than
single track in 1/1994 resulted in bus and offset gains made by the new
Orange Line rail.
The impacts of service changes are often complex. It likely that changes in
auto ownership and transit riding frequency among fairly frequent customers
over the decade are also an important of the story. It is also very
difficult to make assessments of persons using a system from unlinked trip
counts. This is part of why NTD average trip length calculations and
passenger miles estimations are important.
Peter J. Foote
PFoote(a)TransitChicago.com
Market Research/Resource Planning
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: "Mark Schlappi" <Schlappi(a)mag.maricopa.gov>
To: "'Chuck Purvis'" <CPurvis(a)mtc.ca.gov>ov>;
<ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net>
Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2002 6:01 PM
Subject: RE: [CTPP] Reconciling Census Transit Commuters with Ridership
Statistics
Is there a possibility that changing route structures,
with more rail,
have
caused more unlinked trips?
-----Original Message-----
From: Chuck Purvis [mailto:CPurvis@mtc.ca.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2002 3:36 PM
To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net
Subject: [CTPP] Reconciling Census Transit Commuters with Ridership
Statistics
To: CTPP-News
One of the interesting journey-to-work results is the lack of change, at
the
NATIONAL level, in the total number of transit
commuters. The US had
6,069,589 transit commuters according to the 1990 Census, and 6,067,703
transit commuters according to the 2000 Census, a 0.03 percent decrease.
(On
the other hand, the US transit commute SHARE declined
from 5.3 percent in
1990 to 4.7 percent in 2000.)
This compares to national transit ridership statistics which show a 6.4
percent increase in annual unlinked passenger trips comparing 1990 to
2000.
(Source is APTA's 2002 Public Transportation Fact
Book, Table 26.) The
APTA
book (I would assume based on FTA-collected ridership
statistics) shows
annual unlinked public transit trips increasing from 8,799 million trips
in
1990 to 9,363 million trips in 2000 (the 2000 numbers
are preliminary,
according to the 2002 APTA Fact Book).
So, an issue is how to reconcile a 0.0 percent change in national transit
commuters with a 6.4 percent increase in national transit ridership.
A plausible explanation is that the work trip share of public
transportation
trips has declined since 1990. According to the 1990
NPTS, 42.6 percent of
public transportation person trips are for the purpose of "earning a
living"
(NPTS Databook, Vol. 1, Table 4.40).
So, I can calculate that about 3,748 million unlinked transit boardings
(in
1990) are "work trips" and that this might
decline to about 3,747 million
unlinked transit boarding "work trips", in 2000. This means that perhaps
40
percent of year 2000 transit boardings are work trips
(3,747 / 9,363),
which
is quite plausible at the national level.
The story might be that the national number of transit work trips, 1990 to
2000, has remained fairly stable, and that, at least at the national
level,
the growth in transit is attributable to non-work
travel.
The data question is: is information available from either the 1995 NPTS
or
the 2001 NHTS that can corroborate this possible trend
- - a decline in
the
work purpose share for public transportation trips?
Also, who has attempted to reconcile their change in regional transit
commuters with their own transit ridership statistics? What would be most
helpful is any comparisons of on-board surveys or household travel surveys
that show any changes in the trip purpose mix for transit trips.
(Other larger issues still loom in terms of the plausibility/fixability of
the Census data. We are very concerned about the overall LOW numbers of
TOTAL commuters and employed residents we're seeing in the 2000 Census in
our region....)
Wishing a Safe & Sane Happy Fourth of July to All!
Chuck Purvis
***********************************************
Charles L. Purvis, AICP
Senior Transportation Planner/Analyst
Metropolitan Transportation Commission
101 Eighth Street
Oakland, CA 94607-4700
(510) 464-7731 (office)
(510) 464-7848 (fax)
www:
http://www.mtc.ca.gov/
Census WWW:
http://census.mtc.ca.gov/
***********************************************