Why Is Transit Ridership Falling?

Photo: Chris Yarzab/Flickr
Photo: Chris Yarzab/Flickr

Transit ridership took a turn for the worse in 2016. In all but a handful of cities, fewer people rode trains and buses, even in some places, like Los Angeles, that have invested significantly in expanding capacity.

It’s not just a one-year blip, either. In many American cities, the drop in transit ridership is an established trend. The big question is why.

Transit consultant Jarrett Walker at Human Transit wants more than vague speculation about the effect of low gas prices and ride-hailing services. He’s looking for more specific research about causes and effects — and soon:

Bottom line: We need research! Not the sort of formally peer reviewed research that will take a year to publish, but faster work by real transportation scholars that can report preliminary results in time to guide action. I am not a transportation researcher, but there are plenty of them out there, and this is our moment of need.

Here are my research questions:

  • Which global causes seem to matter?  Straight regression analysis, once you get data you believe.  Probably the study will need to start with a small dataset of transit agencies, so that there’s time to talk with each agency and understand their unique data issues.
  • What’s happening to the quantity of transit?  If ridership is falling because service is falling, this isn’t a surprise.  If ridership is falling because service is getting slower — which means lower frequency and speed at the same cost — well, that wouldn’t be surprising either.
  • How does the decline correlate to types of service?  Is this fall happening in dense areas or just in car-based suburbs?   Is it happening on routes that are designed for high ridership, or only on those that are designed for coverage purposes (services retained because three sympathetic people need them rather than because the bus will be full).   Is it correlated to frequency or span changes? Heads up, local geeks!  A lot could be done looking at data for your own transit agency — route by route and even (where available) stop by stop, to analyze where in your metro the fall is really occurring.

More recommended reading today: Green Caltrain looks at whether Bay Area cities are adapting to new rules designed to promote low-car development. And Urban Milwaukee floats the idea of using voluntary bike registration fees to pay for bike infrastructure.

  • Are you for real?

  • The purpose of public transportation is not to get people out of their cars. It is to create mobility, for all people. That is why public transportation needs to be affordable, unless you just want public transportation for the well-to-do, and screw the rest of us.

  • citrate reiterator

    Do you have an actual response to what I said or not?

  • citrate reiterator

    Uh… if public transportation can’t provide an effective alternative to cars, people who can’t afford private vehicles are exactly who you are screwing over. And where exactly did I say Muni shouldn’t be “affordable”? I just think that making it free wouldn’t have the effect you’re looking for.

    It’s also strange to me how you just completely contradicted yourself: in the comment I replied to you claimed to be on board with getting people out of their cars by improving Muni service.

  • citrate reiterator

    (And if you care about the environment I think you absolutely should be concerned about bus service replacing walking instead of driving. Bus service burns less fossil fuels than tens/hundreds of individual cars, for sure, but it also burns way more than walking.)

  • I always find it amusing when people who say “We can’t go back to the 50s” (culturally), want us to go back to the 50s economically, when THAT economy plainly *no longer exists*.