On 2018-08-29 08:47, sms wrote:
On 8/29/2018 7:45 AM, Joerg wrote:

snip

Sacramento Transit is suffering a substantial decline in ridership. If
they can't catch more split-commute folks (car-transit and
bike-transit) they'll have serious budget problems soon. Observations:

This is an issue nationwide. There are multiple causes:

1. Ride-sharing services like Uber and Lyft are heavily subsidized by
investors. When you have two or three passengers, an Uber or Lyft ride
is often no more expensive than mass transit, especially in cities where
the distances are not great.


That's a problem but competition is good. For example, if transit
agencies gave up this nonsensical requirement of paying a new fare for
every leg (transfer) then public transit would beat Uber or Lyft. Three
older adults can hardly ride an Uber for $3.75, plus they don't have to
tip the train conductor or bus driver. They should look at how the
airlines do it. You pay one fare from A to B no matter how many plane
changes are involved.


2. Crime. People prefer the security of a personal vehicle, whether
their own or belonging to a ride-share driver.


That is something where transit could do better. A whole lot better.
Sacramento RT has stepped up patrolling which is nice but ... unruly
homeless are not removed from vehicles, nobody seems to bother when
someone uses a syringe on a vehicle and there are too many non-riding
people loitering around some stations right where people step off on
onto trains. For example, even as a fairly large guy I would not feel
comfortable waiting for a light rail train at Mather Field in Rancho
Cordova yet that is a stop I'd sometimes need.


3. Gentrification. There has been a big push in some areas for "Transit
Oriented Development." Great buzz phrase, but the reality is that it's
just another name for gentrification. How this worked in Los Angeles was
that the low-income people, that were the biggest public transit users,
were displaced by the construction of market-rate, expensive housing.
The poor people moved to more affordable, more remote areas, and bought
cars. The well-off people moved into the new housing, but for the most
part they don't use transit, they drive, because either their workplace
is not along a transit line, they work long or odd hours, or they don't
feel safe. There's a good op-ed about this he
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-rosenthal-transit-gentrification-metro-ridership-20180220-story.html.


That is poor planning on the part of the transit agency. They need to
change with the market and shift routes to where potential riders live
or move. With buses that is not rocket science.


4. Public transit agencies operate as social service agencies. This is
the case in my county. There is little emphasis on trying to get the
middle class to give up their cars and take transit. The largest city,
San Jose, controls the county transit agency and ensures that the
smaller cities do not get the transit that would work to get people out
of their cars.


Time to vote out some people and vote more competent ones in.


The light rail from town to the outskirts is often more than maxed out
with bicycles on board. You carry them onto the train car. There are
two allowed per end section of a car but often there are three to four.

Does anyone enforce the maximum number of bicycles. I've been on those
trains where there were more than two bikes per section and no one said
anything.


Same here but it does become a nuisance to other passengers. It's
aggravating if a commuter brushes a bike chain resulting in a black oil
stain on the expensive khakis.


So we know what needs to be done. They are trying to wing it with a
10% fare reduction but that won't be more than a drop in the bucket.

The problem with fare reductions is that for many riders they aren't
paying themselves anyway. Their employer pays. So the transit agency can
charge less per person but it doesn't increase ridership because fares
were not the issue in the first place.


Even for self-payers like myself 10% doesn't matter. Actually, the fare
in general doesn't matter as long as it isn't outrageous. I am using
transit for convenience and environmental reasons.

For example, the commuter bus to Sacramento costs $5 which isn't cheap
but I'd use it for the return trip if the racks were not inadequate and
so limited in the number of bikes. I am not going to take the risk that
I get stranded far away from home in the evening.


Finally, there is this article from the Onion
https://www.theonion.com/report-98-percent-of-u-s-commuters-favor-public-trans-1819565837.
Funny, but sadly true.


Quote "... to get some of these other cars off the road". Yeah, right.

Transit agencies should hold surveys to find out why people do not ride.
Most importantly, they need to allow detailed comments _and_ follow up
on them. Most people are willing to give their contact information and
are allowing to be contacted to discuss some issues brought up. Out here
the reason is almost always the same, people and especially families
with children do not feel safe on transit. Many of them have tried and
vowed to never again.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/