Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
One thing with Bus and LRT ridership is for the majority of the year rear door boarding was allowed so people simply didn’t pay at least on the MBTA, SEPTA and a few others
One thing with Bus and LRT ridership is for the majority of the year rear door boarding was allowed so people simply didn’t pay at least on the MBTA, SEPTA and a few others
I assure you that transit agencies are keeping track of ridership regardless of whether customers pay fares.
There is zero chance they are reporting fare-only ridership to the federal government (FTA) and more importantly, they need to monitor if/how ridership is rebounding in order to determine service levels.
Transit agencies are fully aware of their ridership, especially major agencies like MBTA, SEPTA, and any other agency that operates light rail.
Seattle’s rail ridership was growing dramatically pre-Covid and there are 3 new subway stations opening later this year and two massive new lines in 2024. Covid decimated rail (and bus)ridership and service has been cut dramatically in Seattle. SF basically stopped service.I I think you have to wait at least a year to make these comparisons cleanly post-Covid.
I think all sorts of metrics, like transit ridership, school performance, traffic, and crime are going to write offs for this pandemic. **** is just not normal.
Seattle’s rail ridership was growing dramatically pre-Covid and there are 3 new subway stations opening later this year and two massive new lines in 2024. Covid decimated rail (and bus)ridership and service has been cut dramatically in Seattle. SF basically stopped service.I I think you have to wait at least a year to make these comparisons cleanly post-Covid.
I agree. It's definitely interesting to see ridership during COVID, but in the long-term I envision the LINK system build-out resulting in Seattle jumping to the top 3. My guess for 2040:
(1) LA (growing system, already #1)
(2) Seattle (massively growing system)
(3) San Diego (growing system)
(4) Portland (moderately growing system)
(5) SF (slowing population growth, more teleworking, increased gentrification. Central subway project may be the only LRT expansion by 2040)
(6) Boston (Green Line Ext will be impactful, but the LRT ridership is exclusively green line so less opportunity to grow in ridership)
(7) RTD (growing population)
(8) DART (hopefully infill development around large network will drive ridership growth)
I think LA will be in its own tier, Seattle safely #2, and San Diego, Portland, SF, and Boston will all be around the same.
I thought Washington State was first? I remember there was a stretch where most recorded deaths were from one nursing home near Seattle. And it seemed Seattle was were the first cases happened. Either way, by the data it’s clear The Bay Area and Seattle handled it best. It’s weird because I’ve spent a lot of time in New England this past year and in general people are following the rules and masking up yet death rates are higher in New England.
Partially being next to NYC partially better bookkeeping. Mass, NH, Maine and Vermont were all in the bottom 15 in excess mortality.
I don't think data during a pandemic when overall numbers are down drastically across the country can be used to indicate actual trends and the pecking order of transit use in the country. This applies to other statistics like airport passenger numbers as well. Some historically smaller airports may find themselves at parity with larger airports but that's only due to the pandemic's impact.
I agree. It's definitely interesting to see ridership during COVID, but in the long-term I envision the LINK system build-out resulting in Seattle jumping to the top 3. My guess for 2040:
(1) LA (growing system, already #1)
(2) Seattle (massively growing system)
(3) San Diego (growing system)
(4) Portland (moderately growing system)
(5) SF (slowing population growth, more teleworking, increased gentrification. Central subway project may be the only LRT expansion by 2040)
(6) Boston (Green Line Ext will be impactful, but the LRT ridership is exclusively green line so less opportunity to grow in ridership)
(7) RTD (growing population)
(8) DART (hopefully infill development around large network will drive ridership growth)
I think LA will be in its own tier, Seattle safely #2, and San Diego, Portland, SF, and Boston will all be around the same.
Regarding LA and FWIW, LA Metro is just now expanding its rail system to serve the western and central areas that are densely populated with people and jobs. The Crenshaw northern line extension is on deck and is projected to have as many as 13,000 riders per mile over 7-10 miles. It would be far and away the busiest light rail line in the US on a per mile basis and I'm not aware of a US heavy rail line that has that high of a ridership per mile outside of the NYC metro.
LA is going to be far and away the #2 rail system in the US by 2040 and maybe on par with Toronto.
I live in Gaslamp... a massive reason there has been so many riders is because there a barely any tickets checks so now 75% of the city jumps on the LR for free
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
