Falling Transit Ridership

[Hermod]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local...=.6eddebf30ff2

31 or 35 major metropolitan areas show declines in public transit ridership.

[Bham1982]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local...=.6eddebf30ff2

31 or 35 major metropolitan areas show declines in public transit ridership.

Uber and ride-sharing, in general, have wrecked havoc on transit numbers the last few years.

In the long run, transit numbers will stabilize, but transit doesn't make much sense in the U.S. outside of NYC and, to a much lesser extent, about a half-dozen other cities [[DC, Bos, Philly, Chi, SF).

In most of the U.S. transit seems to be run as a tourist toy [[see trolleys in Detroit, Cincy, KC, OKC, etc.) or as a last-ditch option for the poorest of the poor.

[Scottathew]

People should re-think transit. I have the means to drive from Rochester Hills to Detroit, but I choose to transfer to a SMART bus in Troy. I save money and more importantly I reclaim time.

Uber and Lyft are too expensive for me. I don't drink, so a major use-case for those services doesn't appeal to me.

[Bham1982]

I save money and more importantly I reclaim time.

Money, yeah, but how do you "save time" taking a bus from Rochester to Detroit?

[MicrosoftFan]

I think I saw a report one time that Detroit’s ridership went up a miniscule amount- 0.3% or something. Houston was the most up, still just at 3%.
Likely because they redesigned their bus network.

[Honky Tonk]

Money, yeah, but how do you "save time" taking a bus from Rochester to Detroit?

Instead of wasting time watching for pedestrians, the road, traffic, "the other guy", and driving, you could have your nose stuck in your cell phone posting brilliant tid-bits on DetroitYES!

[Scottathew]

Money, yeah, but how do you "save time" taking a bus from Rochester to Detroit?

Time spent driving is very low quality. The most I can do is listen to a podcast or music while not hitting things with my car.

Time on the bus on the other hand is of a much higher quality. While on the bus I do homework for my masters degree, watch Netflix, respond to emails, sleep, etc...

Driving downtown:
120 minutes of low-quality time per day.

Busing downtown:
30 minutes of low quality time per day

[Bham1982]

Time spent driving is very low quality. The most I can do is listen to a podcast or music while not hitting things with my car.

Time on the bus on the other hand is of a much higher quality. While on the bus I do homework for my masters degree, watch Netflix, respond to emails, sleep, etc...

Driving downtown:
120 minutes of low-quality time per day.

Busing downtown:
30 minutes of low quality time per day

Driving is objectively much faster than taking the bus. I have no idea how a bus gets from Rochester to Downtown in 15 minutes.

Yes, someone could subjectively prefer sitting on a bus than riding in a car. I would say it's a rare person, but I'm sure they exist.

As someone who spent years commuting to work by bus, I cannot imagine someone would willingly prefer bouncing around on a noisy, dirty, sometimes smelly bus, as opposed to sitting in a a leather seat with climate control and the like, but to each his own.

For all my hours on the bus, I could never imagine sleeping or studying. How can someone do that while lurching about?

[emu steve]

Driving is objectively much faster than taking the bus. I have no idea how a bus gets from Rochester to Downtown in 15 minutes.

Yes, someone could subjectively prefer sitting on a bus than riding in a car. I would say it's a rare person, but I'm sure they exist.

As someone who spent years commuting to work by bus, I cannot imagine someone would willingly prefer bouncing around on a noisy, dirty, sometimes smelly bus, as opposed to sitting in a a leather seat with climate control and the like, but to each his own.

For all my hours on the bus, I could never imagine sleeping or studying. How can someone do that while lurching about?

Sadly for Detroit, the best option is a subway car but none are to be found.

IF the options are a). Bus b). Car Most who have a realistic choice will choose B).

As another poster above indicated, many cities have subways, so they have choices a) Bus, b). Car c). Subway.

That is the truest test of mass transit in urban areas in which employment, entertainment, etc. are highly centralized in cities like NYC, D.C., etc.

Also, sadly, for Detroit the lack of a subway system did not lead to smart growth.

IF there were a subway line along Woodward from say 8 mile to the river than businesses and residences would line Woodward. Housing, retails, etc. would locate around the subway stops. People could take the subway to and from work. Then walk to the cleaners, Starbucks, etc. after work during the week. Many days this hypothetical person wouldn't need to drive his car. If the station stop was Woodward/8 Mile [[Fairgrounds), a whole mini-city could be built there with Starbucks, grocery, cleaners, urgent care, dentist, CVS, half dozen fast foods, etc.

The idea is to build high density housing, say maybe 500 - 1K housing units, multi-family buildings, and build this 'mini-city' to serve those residents and those within say a 5 - 10 minute car drive.

[Scottathew]

Driving is objectively much faster than taking the bus. I have no idea how a bus gets from Rochester to Downtown in 15 minutes.

The bus takes about 55 minutes to get from Troy to Detroit.

The bus doesn't go to Rochester Hills, so first I drive to Troy, then I get on the bus.

Now, instead of driving for 60 minutes, I drive for 15 minutes and bus for 55 minutes.

So my useless time per day goes from 120 minutes, down to 30 minutes if I ride the bus.

The time spent on the bus isn't a total waste because I relax, do school work, and watch Netflix.

It takes longer to get from point A to point B, but I'm able to do stuff while getting there. If I were only driving a car I cannot.

My brain compensates for movement, which makes lurching not an issue for me. Although I'd imagine if someone were prone to motion sickness it may be an issue for them.

[Lowell]

You make an excellent point about reclaiming time. What one can do with hands and body freed from driving is significant.

Add to that is a priceless advantage: the removal of the stress of driving.

Time spent driving is very low quality. The most I can do is listen to a podcast or music while not hitting things with my car.

Time on the bus on the other hand is of a much higher quality. While on the bus I do homework for my masters degree, watch Netflix, respond to emails, sleep, etc...

Driving downtown:
120 minutes of low-quality time per day.

Busing downtown:
30 minutes of low quality time per day

[Bham1982]

You make an excellent point about reclaiming time. What one can do with hands and body freed from driving is significant.

Add to that is a priceless advantage: the removal of the stress of driving.

I don't think I've ever remotely experienced "stress" while driving in Michigan. In Colombia, Mexico and Italy, yeah.

Giant, idiot-proof highways, cruise control, barely any traffic and courteous drivers do not make for extreme stress. Bogota has stressful driving. If driving is, for whatever reason, too difficult, carpooling is an option.

[Bham1982]

DDOT had a 10.32% decline in bus ridership in calendar year 2017, which appears pretty awful. Among major cities, only Miami fared [[slightly) worse.

Source:
http://www.apta.com/resources/statis...rship-APTA.pdf

[ABetterDetroit]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local...=.6eddebf30ff2

31 or 35 major metropolitan areas show declines in public transit ridership.

Interesting article.

One can’t ignore the parallels to the Military Industrial Complex with its unwillingness to embrace new ideas and thinking to protect the revenue stream and the careers based on the old ways of doing the job even when facing cost effective obsolescence.

[Johnnny5]

Uber and the other car services are undoubtedly cutting into mass transit use, but I would guess the improved economy is just as responsible for the decline. With the exception of a few places [[like NYC) those using mass transit are typically doing so for purely economic reasons.

[emu steve]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local...=.6eddebf30ff2

31 or 35 major metropolitan areas show declines in public transit ridership.

I will speak of D.C. transit ridership, one of the highlights of that article.

The subway system was getting older [[first segment completed in 1976) and badly in need of repairs [["deferred maintenance"). Metro started a project which lasted I think almost two years and involved just terrible interruptions to service for weeks or months.

Sometimes a whole segment of a line was shut down FOR WEEKS and folks had to take shuttle buses 'across the divide' between two segments of the line. It was a rotating mess. One line messed up for weeks and then another line. Then that first line got another series of work and it was messed up again. Certain lines were taken out of service on weekends. Lines closed down early so crews could work during the week.

That is why the 2016 statistics were so bad. Metro stabilized in 2017.

That was a ONE TIME event which caused havoc with service. NO one was happy. It was like purgatory for D.C. area subway riders.

Our system is now very close to having an agreement on DEDICATED funding of 500M per year paid from D.C., Md, and Va.

Since Detroit doesn't have a subway system, what is the relevance to Detroit?

The real enduring problem in the D.C. area system is the BUS system. Ditto Detroit.

I might take Uber a few miles but I doubt I'd take it 13 miles to work. It would be either bus/subway or drive.

There might be other reasons for some MARGINAL decline like telework, maybe reductions in transit subsidies by employers, etc.

BUT, in D.C. telework is what a decade old. It doesn't explain something which hit hard in 2016.

My guess is that the D.C. subway hit rock bottom in 2016 and is bouncing back. They now have on time guarantees.

I went to the March For Our Lives Saturday afternoon and the subway system was flawless.

[Atticus]

I hear it all the time, from Amazon, from politicians, and from arm/chair city planners. I hear the same basic statement: “Sucessful cities have transit”.

They are correct. Successful cities do have transit. Here is what they often miss: Successful cities need transit to solve their transportation problems. The point is, transit is there to solve a problem... not just there to exist for aesthetics and to say “we have transit.” Identity the problems first, then find solutions to match.

Otherwise transit is just being built for optics, and not for a purpose.

[Bham1982]

I hear it all the time, from Amazon, from politicians, and from arm/chair city planners. I hear the same basic statement: “Sucessful cities have transit”.

They are correct. Successful cities do have transit. Here is what they often miss: Successful cities need transit to solve their transportation problems. The point is, transit is there to solve a problem... not just there to exist for aesthetics and to say “we have transit.” Identity the problems first, then find solutions to match.

Otherwise transit is just being built for optics, and not for a purpose.

Yes. All this x1000.

Transit in the U.S., in 2018, is MeTooism. Detroit needs a trolley 'cause Cincy got a trolley, etc. etc.

And, yes, [[most) successful cities have transit, but transit isn't a cause of their success; it's a result stemming from success.

[dtowncitylover]

I hear it all the time, from Amazon, from politicians, and from arm/chair city planners. I hear the same basic statement: “Sucessful cities have transit”.

They are correct. Successful cities do have transit. Here is what they often miss: Successful cities need transit to solve their transportation problems. The point is, transit is there to solve a problem... not just there to exist for aesthetics and to say “we have transit.” Identity the problems first, then find solutions to match.

Otherwise transit is just being built for optics, and not for a purpose.

...but we do have a problem. Whatever Bham's belief that we're not NYC, as if we're somehow not aware we're not, that doesn't mean we don't have a problem. [[Literally no one is saying we need to have two dozen subway routes, another dozen commuter routes, and 300 bus routes)

Our problem is that Detroit is hyper-dependent, like no other metro in the USA, on the car. LA, Dallas/FW, Phoenix, Houston, Miami, DC/Baltimore, Atlanta; these sprawling metroplexes still have regional transit and are still investing in transit. And none, as far as I'm aware, are looking to dismantle their systems simply because Uber/Lyft is a thing [[for now). DDOT and SMART are the butt of jokes, when we need to take seriously our failure in support good regional, mass transit. We do not invest in transit like other cities and region. We do not take it seriously like most other cities and regions. It's amazing how ignorant we are about how successful transit is needed for successful cities.

The point of the RTA isn't to spend billions of dollars. The point is to bring together our transit agencies under one roof for efficiency in running regional transit and to have one voice when we ask for money in DC. [[And I really don't care to hear about the current climate of DC; "this too shall pass" is my motto and we better be ready when it does)

Our transportation problem is the lack of credible choice in moving from one end to the metro from the other without a car.

There is no law that says the Motor City and its environs must drive cars. We do not have to be this way. We are only this way because our populace is provincial and used to living cheap lives getting cheap public services in return and our leaders are weak.

But sure let's use the QLine and Hermod's known bias against public transit to just wallow and do nothing about our lack of effective public transit in Detroit.

[Hermod]

But sure let's use the QLine and Hermod's known bias against public transit to just wallow and do nothing about our lack of effective public transit in Detroit.

Given that I am a railroad, interurban, and trolley nut, I am certainly not opposed to rapid and efficient public transit.

What I am opposed to is boondoggles like the Detroit parking shuttle [[aka Q-line) or the abortion called the Wave they are trying to build here in Ft Lauderdale. They do not "move" significant numbers of people and just make the traffic more congested.

What would really be ideal would be if 48307 could just hop in his car and drives over to, say, 24 Mile and Van Dyke where he would board a rapid rail car moving as either a subway or an elevated railroad which would whisk him downtown while he lounges in a reclining seat using the on-board Wi-Fi to surf the internet or do wok on his laptop which is held by the convenient tray table folding down on the back of the seat in front of him.

The operator has at his controls a red button and if an objectionable passenger makes troubles for the operator or for the other passengers, he pushes the button and the train is met at the next station stop by four jack-booted thugs who pull the offender off the train and give hoim a well-deserved "wood shampoo" with their nightsticks.

Trains would run on ten minute headway during morning and evening rush hours and twenty minute headway the remainder of the 24 hours. If 48307 chose to go to the airport, he could quickly transfer downtown from the Van Dyke line to the Michigan line which would drop him off at the front of the airport.

The Jefferson line would go to Mount Clemens. The Gratiot line would go to Port Huron. The Van Dyke line would go to Imlay City. The Woodward line would go to Flint. The Southfield line would go from Melvindale to Birmingham. The Grand River line would go to Brighton. The Schoolcraft line would go to Ann Arbor as would the Michigan line. The Fort Street line would go to Monroe.

The next thing we would do is build lateral lines along 8-Mile, I-696, and M-59. Standard fare would be a buck a ride.

While not exactly in line with my vision, this is what we once had:

[ABetterDetroit]

Our problem is that Detroit is hyper-dependent, like no other metro in the USA, on the car. LA, Dallas/FW, Phoenix, Houston, Miami, DC/Baltimore, Atlanta; these sprawling metroplexes still have regional transit and are still investing in transit.

Which one of those "investing in transit" cities is 100% dependent on a property tax for funding for the transit?

What is so hard not to get for the transit supporters on why we have not succeeded?

1/3 wants transit no matter who or how it is paid for. Another 1/3 will never support a tax increase ever. The last 1/3 IS where the battle is won or lost.

Transit in metro Detroit has lost the middle third repeatedly over and over for decades because the vehicle for the tax is a terrible economically destructive tax hike in a region that can't even remotely compete against 40 other states because the property taxes are already way to F#&%ing high!

Do you guys that are all in on transit even listen to the middle third and why they wont vote for a property tax increase for transit? We are all not evil right wingers I assure you, just people in the middle trying to sort out the ever growing mountains of BS slung at us from the far right and far left.

If one more person says to me "I'm not voting for a millage increase but I would vote for a one cent sales tax increase for transit... why won't they do it that way?" I should send them all to you dtowncitylover so you can tell them that it is better to depreciate the value of their home by raising the payment. Don't forget to explain to them the part how much you like having landlords raising rent to collect tax and how efficient that is to the price of rent.

If liberals refuse to protect people from predatory landlords who the hell will?

http://www.cfte.org/elections

[dtowncitylover]

Well I guess this means we should widen all the freeways to 8 lanes in each direction.

[EGrant]

I just don't see mass transit really catching on here at this rate. Our attachment to cars [[despite potholes, insurance costs, weather and other inhibiting factors) has stunted what might be the natural growth of mass transit over time. So instead, we have piecemeal options like SMART, QLine, DDot, etc. that don't provide enough of a network for the average person to give up their cars. Even if the QLine was extended to Pontiac for example, most people in Oakland County are still miles away from Woodward, or even a bus stop that would take them to Woodward.

Unless we undertake some absurd infrastructure project that makes abandoning a car a reasonable and feasible option for the average person, we're never going to truly achieve the results most people on this forum want. Basic improvements will make life easier for those without a car and get people with cars to drive less, but this will always be the Motor City.

[dtowncitylover]

...but this will always be the Motor City.

And because of that we will fail as a region and become more irrelevant in the global network than Cleveland, Indy, or St. Louis. But glad to know we were once something even though I never saw it.

[dtowncitylover]

So instead, we have piecemeal options like SMART, QLine, DDot, etc. that don't provide enough of a network for the average person to give up their cars.

That's literally the effing point of the need for the RTA. Make a piecemeal situation into a whole one with connections and the ability for us car-loving Detroiters to at least sometimes put away the car.

New Yorkers still drive. There are still taxis in London. The cars aren't going away. But holy hell, we are dense people if we can't understand why transit is extremely important to have for any city/region.