U.S. Transit Ridership Is Plummeting: Can San Diego’s Proposal Buck The Trend?

[SFBruin]

Delete.

[Just-In-Cali]

I would personally like tp see a breakdown if the decrease in transit ridership correlates to an increase in drivers or not. Otherwise this is deceptive.
Another factor in the last 10 years has been a massive increase in people digitally commuting. I work from home 3 days a week now, compared to going into the office 5 days. Most of my coworkers do as well. Many tech heavy companies are doing this to save money. And it works. Many service jobs nowadays require workers to travel to mutiple sites in a day, so transit isnt their best option if they are hauling things around.
Also playing into the gig economy...regular "to/from" riders on transit arent as consistant. All these factors play a part. But I still agree that the culture of the United States is still very car centric. It rebounded as soon as oil prices crashed a few years back. Id like it to change.

[Will O' Wisp]

^^^^

Originally Posted by Will O' Wisp

In any case, if you don't want to take my word for it you can read this UCLA study that ties SoCal's transit ridership declines explicitly to increased car ownership among low income minorities.

Increased car ownership can likely explain much of the transit ridership decline in Southern California.
Between 2000 and 2015, private vehicle ownership dramatically increased among households in the SCAG region, from 1.7 to 2.4 vehicles per household. During the 1990s, the region grew by 1.8 million people and 456,000 household vehicles, or 0.25 cars per new resident. But from 2000 to 2015, the region added 2.3 million people and 2.1 million household vehicles, nearly one car per new resident.

Car ownership has grown fastest among the most frequent transit riders.
A small portion of Southern California residents take the majority of all transit trips: Less than 3 percent of the region’s population rides transit very frequently, another 20 percent rides occasionally, and more than three-quarters of residents ride transit rarely or never. Frequent transit ridership is concentrated among lower-income people, particularly foreign-born residents. And these households have outpaced the average regional resident in new car ownership — the share of foreign-born households without a car dropped by 42 percent between 2000 and 2015.

Fuel prices, service changes, and rideshare use are not the likely drivers of ridership decline.
Other potential causes do not strongly correlate with the fall of transit ridership in Southern California, unlike the spike in car ownership among heavy transit users. Gas prices have jumped up and down while transit use has declined, transit fares and service records have not notably changed, and while new rideshare services such as Lyft and Uber may play some role, transit use began its decline before rideshare became popular and research shows that rideshare users are mostly making different trips at different times than regular transit riders.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Just-In-Cali

I would personally like tp see a breakdown if the decrease in transit ridership correlates to an increase in drivers or not. Otherwise this is deceptive.

There has been a nationwide increase in car ownership and vehicle miles driven concurrent with the decrease in transit ridership. So, yeah, it's a factor.

Also, re. the shift of immigrants to vehicles, there was a huge wave of low income immigrants who arrived to the U.S. from about 1970 to the early 2000's. They're now at a point where they're more financially secure, and many have moved to suburban areas, where car ownership is essential. And we're nearing the end of an economic cycle where millions of people saw their standard of living increase. And the tougher immigration rules have limited new arrivals so the next generation of transit riders never took their place.

So for example, a Mexican family that may have lived in Boyle Heights in the 1990's might be in the East SFV or somewhere like Whittier now. They're more economically secure, started a family and maybe own a home. They're almost certainly using cars.

[C.]

Informative posts by accord1999, Will O' Wisp, and Crawford. I see the error in my previous post now.

[Sun Belt]

Originally Posted by emathias

Uber and Lyft are responsible for a lot of the decline, even in places where transit is sometimes faster than cars during rush hour.

This 100%.

Let's use historical references to reinforce your point. The personal automobile was far superior to the slow overcrowded trolley cars in our cities.

Result: Cars took over. Nobody wanted to ride crowded PT cars, but they didn't have another option at the time.

Now let's zoom to the modern world. Transit dependent people still do not want to wait and board a crowded, jerky bus -- before rideshare -- they didn't really have an option to the now Government Run Monopoly of Public Transportation Systems.

Since the creation of privately run Ride Share technology, the market [driven by consumers] is making the best decision for their lives.

Result: declining PT numbers at a time when the overall population continues to increase and not only that, the overall population/densities levels in our cities increase.

[sopas ej]

I've brought this up in a similar thread some time ago, but...

Could it be that public transit ridership is going down because of gentrification, and lower-income people leaving big cities because of being priced out?

At least in Los Angeles, the majority of people who ride the bus are people who can't afford cars. Los Angeles has one of the largest bus systems in the US, daily ridership of LA County's Metro Buses is still nearly a million (about 914,841 for LA's Metro Buses only, not including Metro Rail). If lower-income neighborhoods' residents are being replaced by higher-income residents, isn't it possible that those newer, higher-income residents are NOT taking the bus, and instead driving and/or Uber-ing/Lyft-ing? At least in LA County, even though bus ridership is going down, rail ridership is actually going up.

And I seriously doubt that Uber/Lyft is taking over public transit; using those rideshare services to commute daily to and from work isn't cheap.

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by sopas ej

I've brought this up in a similar thread some time ago, but...

Could it be that public transit ridership is going down because of gentrification, and lower-income people leaving big cities because of being priced out?

At least in Los Angeles, the majority of people who ride the bus are people who can't afford cars. Los Angeles has one of the largest bus systems in the US, daily ridership of LA County's Metro Buses is still nearly a million (about 914,841 for LA's Metro Buses only, not including Metro Rail). If lower-income neighborhoods' residents are being replaced by higher-income residents, isn't it possible that those newer, higher-income residents are NOT taking the bus, and instead driving and/or Uber-ing/Lyft-ing? At least in LA County, even though bus ridership is going down, rail ridership is actually going up.

And I seriously doubt that Uber/Lyft is taking over public transit; using those rideshare services to commute daily to and from work isn't cheap.

Yeah, I can't imagine what you said isn't playing a big role.

Re: Uber/Lyft- It's cheap. It's cheap for middle-class people. But if I ditch my car(which I am hoping to do soon), I am doing it to avoid traffic completely and to save a lot of money. Even if my Uber ride to and from school/work is like 7 bucks, thats 14 a day or 280 a month. Add in my life after work/school and the weekends, and it doesn't make sense. At that point, I am BARELY saving money and I have to deal with waiting for a ride. If I took PT/biked in a city like Chicago, I would spend something like 110.00 a month. Period. That is when waiting for the train and dealing with some idiots periodically becomes way worth it. Currently, between car payment/insurance/taxes etc./oil/routine fixes/non-routine fixed/depreciation etc I figure my car cost me 550.00 a month. So I would save almost 450 a month or around 5,000 a year using PT. Worth it. Saving like 100 a month by Ubering everywhere could be slightly more convenient than PT but a lot less convenient than my car and a lot less affordable than PT. Not a horrible plan, but not right for me, and I would assume for many others.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by sopas ej

Could it be that public transit ridership is going down because of gentrification, and lower-income people leaving big cities because of being priced out?

In the classic gentrification transition, working class families are replaced by young(er) singles. It doesn't make sense that they would be less reliant on transit. I don't think I've ever heard of a neighborhood that hemorrhaged transit riders due to gentrification.

[sopas ej]

Originally Posted by jtown,man

Yeah, I can't imagine what you said isn't playing a big role.

Re: Uber/Lyft- It's cheap. It's cheap for middle-class people. But if I ditch my car(which I am hoping to do soon), I am doing it to avoid traffic completely and to save a lot of money. Even if my Uber ride to and from school/work is like 7 bucks, thats 14 a day or 280 a month. Add in my life after work/school and the weekends, and it doesn't make sense. At that point, I am BARELY saving money and I have to deal with waiting for a ride. If I took PT/biked in a city like Chicago, I would spend something like 110.00 a month. Period. That is when waiting for the train and dealing with some idiots periodically becomes way worth it. Currently, between car payment/insurance/taxes etc./oil/routine fixes/non-routine fixed/depreciation etc I figure my car cost me 550.00 a month. So I would save almost 450 a month or around 5,000 a year using PT. Worth it. Saving like 100 a month by Ubering everywhere could be slightly more convenient than PT but a lot less convenient than my car and a lot less affordable than PT. Not a horrible plan, but not right for me, and I would assume for many others.

I just now did an Uber price fare estimate from my apartment to my job. $21.96 minimum, and I know it changes throughout the day. It's not mile-based, it's price gouging depending on the time of day. Doesn't sound too cost effective to me. I could drive the 8 miles myself, or I could take a one-seat bus ride (no transfers) for $1.75 one way. It would take about an hour (I've done it before), but it's possible.

[sopas ej]

Originally Posted by Crawford

In the classic gentrification transition, working class families are replaced by young(er) singles. It doesn't make sense that they would be less reliant on transit. I don't think I've ever heard of a neighborhood that hemorrhaged transit riders due to gentrification.

Working class families are replaced by younger singles only? Hmm? What about higher-income families, and higher income couples? Higher income singles? Just because you've never heard of it, or thought of it, doesn't mean that it doesn't happen.

I think studies should be done regarding this, instead of this capitalist feel-good propaganda of "Public transit ridership is down because more people are buying cars and taking Uber/Lyft to get around. Incomes are going up, and capitalism, capitalism, capitalism!" to the point that Americans are accepting that as fact.

[Sun Belt]

Guys, if you spend $150 on Lyft/Uber per month versus $100 month on a transit pass that requires multiple transfers that takes 3x the amount of time, which one will you choose?

It is that simple.

Let's dig deeper:

PT is not keeping up with population growth. In America, people don't want to ride PT unless they have to. If given the choice, they would rather spend money to buy a vehicle than be forced to ride PT. All those poor people that work 2-3 jobs, cannot rely on PT because it goes nowhere. PT systems are almost all hub n spoke, in the real world, poor transit dependent Americans do not work in a hub and certainly don't live in a spoke.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by sopas ej

Working class families are replaced by younger singles only? Hmm? What about higher-income families, and higher income couples? Higher income singles? Just because you've never heard of it, or thought of it, doesn't mean that it doesn't happen.

When has a geography gentrified, and ridership plummeted? Granted, it's possible, but I can't think of any obvious examples.

The most gentrified geographies in the U.S. pretty much all have the highest ridership since WW2. In contrast, the least gentrified geographies generally have plummeting ridership. Really poor areas have lower workplace participation and population loss.

[craigs]

Some of the growth in car ownership and commuting in the Los Angeles area is attributable to passage of a state law legalizing driver's licenses for undocumented residents. Nearly a million Californians received licenses without proof of citizenship between 2015 and June 2017. That's a lot of new drivers on the road in such a short period of time, even in a state as large as California. It was bound to affect the transit ridership statistics, and almost certainly was a major contributor to the Los Angeles region's dramatic recent drop in transit usage.

[cabasse]

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

Guys, if you spend $150 on Lyft/Uber per month versus $100 month on a transit pass that requires multiple transfers that takes 3x the amount of time, which one will you choose?

It is that simple.

Let's dig deeper:

PT is not keeping up with population growth. In America, people don't want to ride PT unless they have to. If given the choice, they would rather spend money to buy a vehicle than be forced to ride PT. All those poor people that work 2-3 jobs, cannot rely on PT because it goes nowhere. PT systems are almost all hub n spoke, in the real world, poor transit dependent Americans do not work in a hub and certainly don't live in a spoke.

uber/lyft are subsizied by investors. i'd prefer to bike/take transit. i drive some, WFH some, bike/marta some.

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

Guys, if you spend $150 on Lyft/Uber per month versus $100 month on a transit pass that requires multiple transfers that takes 3x the amount of time, which one will you choose?

It is that simple.

Let's dig deeper:

PT is not keeping up with population growth. In America, people don't want to ride PT unless they have to. If given the choice, they would rather spend money to buy a vehicle than be forced to ride PT. All those poor people that work 2-3 jobs, cannot rely on PT because it goes nowhere. PT systems are almost all hub n spoke, in the real world, poor transit dependent Americans do not work in a hub and certainly don't live in a spoke.

Spending $150 a month on Uber/Lyft will get you maybe 1 week of commuting (unless you live close enough to walk... in which case you would just... walk).

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV

Spending $150 a month on Uber/Lyft will get you maybe 1 week of commuting (unless you live close enough to walk... in which case you would just... walk).

yeah, i was gonna say.

who the hell is commuting via uber/lyft everyday for $150/month.

it would cost me about $650/month to commute via uber/lyft (~$15 per commute x twice a day x 22 work days per month).

transit is about $10 per workday, or $220 a month.

both options are too rich for my blood, so i just ride my bike to work most days.

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

yeah, i was gonna say.

who the hell is commuting via uber/lyft everyday for $150/month.

it would cost me about $650/month to commute via uber/lyft (~$15 per commute x twice a day x 22 work days per month).

transit is about $10 per workday, or $220 a month.

both options are too rich for my blood, so i just ride my bike to work most days.

Hmm... how is transit so expensive? A 30-day CTA Pass is $105 and there's a good chance you can get it pre-tax. A Metra monthly pass from Ravenswood to Evanston is not much more ($123). You probably don't need both (and if you did, you would likely get away with the CTA link up pass for an extra $55... which is closer to $220 but not quite).

[C.]

I'll share my personal situation when I lived in Jersey City.

I worked from home 2 days a week.
Employer paid 100% of transit costs to/from work.
I would use Uber/Lyft on days I didn't feel like talking a bus to the Journal Square PATH station to get into Manhattan.
Average fare was $6.00 one way for UberX or $3 and change if UberPool.

Monthly costs getting to and from work would be about $140.

When I moved within a short walk of Journal Square PATH, I no longer had a need for Uber or Lyft. But I ended up paying $400 a month more in rent. I was better off living further away from the station and using Uber and Lyft daily (or taking the slow-ass bus).

Everyone's situation and economics is different. There are tons of folks that eschew buses and will user ride sharing to get to a rail transit station. It costs more but the convenience and speed, especially in the winter months, was well worth it.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV

Hmm... how is transit so expensive? A 30-day CTA Pass is $105 and there's a good chance you can get it pre-tax. A Metra monthly pass from Ravenswood to Evanston is not much more ($123). You probably don't need both (and if you did, you would likely get away with the CTA link up pass for an extra $55... which is closer to $220 but not quite).

i can take the brown line to the purple line up to evanston, but it takes way too long, so when i do take transit i take the CTA lawrence bus over to Metra ravenswood. so i get double dinged on fares from both CTA and Metra.

if i were an everyday transit rider, yeah, i could probably get monthly passes for CTA and Metra for a little cheaper ($180/month total), but nuts to that when i can just ride my bike for free!!!