APTA Quarterly Transit Ridership Reports

[mhays]

Originally Posted by SnyderBock

How is that inherently flawed? This is how Denver's RTD funds its self. RTD collects a 1% sales tax from a district which includes all or parts of an 8 county greater metro area.

Isn't that why Fastracks is having major revenue problems?

[J. Will]

Originally Posted by nname

They adjusted all 2011 monthly and year-to-date ridership on both Q1 and Q2 reports (and of course they didn't go back to modify the 2011 reports). I wonder why they're changing...

How could they have been off by more than 1 million riders per day? If Montreal is off by 1 million per day, how many other systems are?

[ssiguy]

I find it very interesting how 3 of the largest gainers......Cleveland, Nashville, and KC are all cities that have not expanded/built LRT of streetcars but rather have implemented Bus Rapid Transit.

[mrnyc]

^ it is interesting. cleveland ridership grew all around, heavy rail, light rail and bus, but bus ridership the least. this is all good news for rta.

cle rta is doing a lot of rail station rehab or rebuilding. there is some talk of moving toward smartcard technology, but no rail expansion. all rta talks about along those lines is of more brt. the people, if not rta, used to talk about closing a rail loop around the downtown core, but you don't hear anything about that lately as far as a major project. if anything suburban extensions of rail lines will happen first, there have been several solid plans. we'll see. reality is rta is cash-strapped and most intent on running a good transit system, which they do.

[Beta_Magellan]

In places like Cleveland—not really growing and certainly not having capacity issues on their existing network—system maintenance is definitely the big priority.

The big reason Milwaukee’s been dropping ridership over the last decade, even in the face of increasing development in dense areas and a national trend towards higher ridership, is because MCTS hasn’t been given the resources to keep their basic bus services running at decent frequencies.

[nname]

Originally Posted by J. Will

How could they have been off by more than 1 million riders per day? If Montreal is off by 1 million per day, how many other systems are?

In 2011, STM reported 405 million trips. Looking at the 2011 YTD of 208 millions for the first 2 quarters, seems like it is matching that number.

So my guess is... in the 2011 and earlier report, they assumed the number reported by STM as linked trips. But in 2012 and newer report, they changed the assumption to unlinked trips (boardings).

So the question is, is the 405 millions reported by STM really linked or unlinked? Comparing to other agencies, I'm leaning toward unlinked:

• Using the original number, the ridership for TTC is only 11.5% higher in 2011. But comparing the transit revenue from both agencies, TTC gets $998 millions, but STM only gets $533 millions, a 87% margin.
• Using the modified number, the ridership for TransLink is only 18% lower. TransLink's 2011 transit revenue is $445 millions, 20% less than STM.
• Using the modified number, TTC ridership is 98% higher than STM, with 87% more fare revenue.

But then, STM fare is slightly cheaper than TTC and TransLink. I doubt the small difference would yield such a large margin in revenue though..

[nfitz]

Originally Posted by nname

In 2011, STM reported 405 million trips. Looking at the 2011 YTD of 208 millions for the first 2 quarters, seems like it is matching that number.

So my guess is... in the 2011 and earlier report, they assumed the number reported by STM as linked trips. But in 2012 and newer report, they changed the assumption to unlinked trips (boardings). ...

I just noticed this in the APTA reports, and noticed the thread.

The Montreal ridership never made sense compared to Toronto. Montreal and Toronto have similar subways (69 km vs 72 km; 68 stations vs 64 stations; 759 17-m long cars compared to 678 22.9-m long cars). If anything Toronto had more capacity given the cars are 35% longer and 25% wider, making the car almost 70% bigger.

Peak frequencies are similar, Toronto's off-peak frequencies are lower (more frequent - never more than a 6-min scheduled wait).

Anecdotally Toronto subway trains always seem busier on weekends and evenings ... and I've seldom seen Montreal trains packed as tightly in rush-hour as Toronto (or at least leaving as many people behind).

So how could Montreal have slightly higher subway ridership?

The new numbers make a lot more sense to me.

[Nouvellecosse]

The individual Toronto cars are larger, but Montreal trains are longer since on the three busiest lines it has 9 car trains, and Toronto typically has 6 car trains (which it can't exceed due to platform length). So it's potential capacity really isn't higher.

[nfitz]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

The individual Toronto cars are larger, but Montreal trains are longer since on the three busiest lines it has 9 car trains, and Toronto typically has 6 car trains (which it can't exceed due to platform length). So it's potential capacity really isn't higher.

If Montreal's fleet of cars is only 12% larger (before Toronto or Montreal's new cars started arriving), and yet Toronto's cars themselves are 70% bigger than Montreal's, surely the potential capacity of Toronto's fleet is significantly larger than Montreal's - assuming that both fleets are fully in use and have the same number of spares at rush hour.

A 6-car train in Toronto is about 138 metres long, compared to a 9-car train in Montreal that is about 152 metres long. That's only 10% longer trains in Montreal. The Toronto trains however are 25% wider. The area of a 6-car train in Toronto is 13.7% more than a 9-car train in Montreal. With Montreal's 759 cars you can only make 84 trains compared to the 113 trains you can make with Toronto's 678 cars.

To make a short story long. Toronto trains each have 14% more capacity, and Toronto has 34% more trains. The entire Toronto fleet has 52% more capacity than Montreal's.

So again, it's not surprising that the Toronto subway can move a lot more people than the Montreal subway at peak periods. And at off-peak periods, the Toronto trains are more frequent (and more crowded in my experience).

[Nouvellecosse]

Total capacity is also dependent on things like the seating layout and train configuration (number and size of control cabins, etc.) You cannot just take the length of the train, divide it by the number of cars, and then assume that the result is the length of the passenger space in each car.

As a result, the difference in their capacities are nowhere near what such "area" calculations would imply. Based on this page, the new trains will have a capacity of about 1586 people when you include both sitting and standing, and the TTC and local media have widely quoted the new trains will have 10% more capacity than the current H series, meaning that the H series had a capacity of about 1442 people per train. A 9 car Montreal metro train has a total combined sitting/standing capacity of 1440 people.

As far as the total number of trains, you can't directly translate the number of trains the agency owns into the number of trains it has in revenue service at any given time. They all have different reliability records and require varying amounts of maintenance time. Despite their age, the Montreal metro cars are known for being unusually reliable. And neither agency can put more trains into service than its network can support regardless of how many it has available.

So all in all, Toronto may have very slightly higher capacity, but there just isn't a big difference.

What I suspect allows Montreal to have such high ridership is that the ridership is more evenly distributed across the network. In Toronto, the YUS line gets about 75% of ridership meaning it is often overcrowded with packed trains leaving people waiting during rush hour, yet underutilized capacity on other parts of the system. The ridership in Montreal is more consistent across the lines.

[nfitz]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

So all in all, Toronto may have very slightly higher capacity, but there just isn't a big difference.

With almost as many subway cars as Montreal, but them being much bigger, there's a huge difference in capacity.

APTA reports that Toronto has nearly double the subway ridership as Toronto. The capacity is clearly greater.

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here.

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

What I suspect allows Montreal to have such high ridership is that the ridership is more evenly distributed across the network. In Toronto, the YUS line gets about 75% of ridership meaning it is often overcrowded with packed trains leaving people waiting during rush hour, yet underutilized capacity on other parts of the system. The ridership in Montreal is more consistent across the lines.

And yet it is about half of what you get in Toronto, according to APTA. I'm missing something here ... Montreal has less capacity overall, and less riders ... what point are you trying to make?

Why do you say the YUS lines gets 75% of the ridership? According to the latest report, of the 3 lines, YUS has 56% of the ridership ... and 47% of the stations. Other than the 5-station Sheppard line, the entire network seems quite well used to me ... and I see a lot more overpacked trains on Saturday in Toronto than I do in Montreal, even though they are more frequent in Toronto on Saturdays.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by nfitz

With almost as many subway cars as Montreal, but them being much bigger, there's a huge difference in capacity.

As we've already discussed, we cannot determine capacity this way. Capacity is a function of total train capacity, and train frequency, not the total number of cars multiplied by car capacity. This is because even if Toronto had double the number of larger subway cars, it could still only run a 6 car train approximately every 2 minutes due to platform length, train acceleration, dwell times, etc.

The same is the case for Montreal where it can only run a 9 car train (which carries the same number of passengers as Toronto's 6 car trains) at about the same interval. So there is not a huge difference in capacity.

Originally Posted by nfitz

APTA reports that Toronto has nearly double the subway ridership as Toronto. The capacity is clearly greater.

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here.

That is the case only for this one quarterly report,which shows a significant drop for Montreal. This cannot be used to draw conclusions about capacity, especially considering that the reports throughout the last 5 years or so have consistently shown them to have similar ridership, with Montreal coming out on top on several occasions. So this quarter is simply an outlier.

Originally Posted by nfitz

And yet it is about half of what you get in Toronto, according to APTA. I'm missing something here ... Montreal has less capacity overall, and less riders ... what point are you trying to make?

As mentioned above, you cannot measure capacity by usage (capacity is potential ridership) and even if you could, you can't make general conclusions about a system based on one anomalous quarterly report.

The point that I'm trying to make is a rather simple one. The Toronto Subway and the Montreal Metro are quite similar in terms of capacity.

Originally Posted by nfitz

Why do you say the YUS lines gets 75% of the ridership? According to the latest report, of the 3 lines, YUS has 56% of the ridership ... and 47% of the stations. Other than the 5-station Sheppard line, the entire network seems quite well used to me ... and I see a lot more overpacked trains on Saturday in Toronto than I do in Montreal, even though they are more frequent in Toronto on Saturdays.

Yes 75% was an exaggerated guesstimate, but historically the ridership had been somewhat lopsided. Taking a closer look at the more recent number shows the ridership improving outside the YUS line (I've been a transit watcher for many years, and it wasn't long ago that there was a bigger discrepancy). For instance in the 2007-2008 report, the YUS line had ridership 56% higher than BD.

[nfitz]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

As we've already discussed, we cannot determine capacity this way.

Of course you can determine capacity that way. You are wrong.

If at rush hour, both systems have virtually all their fleet in use, and a similar spare ratio, then the system which has a much higher capacity fleet, has a higher capacity

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

The same is the case for Montreal where it can only run a 9 car train (which carries the same number of passengers as Toronto's 6 car trains) at about the same interval. So there is not a huge difference in capacity.

There's surely a higher capacity for Toronto. A 6-car Toronto train is 15% greater in area than a 9-car Montreal train. However Toronto trains have more % of standing space, which you can squeeze more people in. Common sense suggests that the Toronto capacity is likely 20% to 25% more per train. But 20% isn't a huge difference, I'd agree.

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

That is the case only for this one quarterly report,which shows a significant drop for Montreal.

Look at the reports. The last 3 reports show that "drop". But then read the reported Quarterly change in the report. There isn't any, there's actually an increase. If you compare the Q1, Q2, and Q3 2012 reports, they've restated the Q1, Q2, Q3 2011 numbers. Clearly there was an error in the old reporting that's now been fixed.

I've said for years that the reports don't make sense, as even if the trains are a similar capacity, and the system is a similar length - Toronto trains are more frequent, and packed to capacity at peak ... and quite full off-peak ... so how can Montreal have higher ridership?

The answer clearly is that now they've fixed the numbers, that the Toronto subway carries about 75% more people than the Montreal subway.

Though to tell the truth, the more I dig, the more I get the impression while the 2011 reports seemed to be overstating Montreal compared to Toronto, the 2012 reports seem to be understating Montreal compared to Toronto. Total passenger trips (linked) for Toronto is about 25% higher than Montreal according to STM and TTC annual reports ... and revenue numbers suggest similar. And yet the APTA numbers now suggest that Montreal is much less ... unless Toronto riders make significantly more transfers than in Montreal ...

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

The point that I'm trying to make is a rather simple one. The Toronto Subway and the Montreal Metro are quite similar in terms of capacity.

If the trains ran a similar frequency, then I'd agree.

However, the green line and orange line in Montreal are only 20 trains per hour in AM peak (at pm peak green is 15 trains per hour and orange is 20) - in Toronto the YUS and BD are both over 25 trains per hour in AM peak and are both about 24 trains per hour in PM peak.

Off-peak Toronto is never worse than 12 trains per hour on YUS and BD (and about 11 on Sheppard), with service for about 19.5 hours per day. In Montreal service gets as low 6 trains per hour (and even a bit worse near closing) with about 19 hours a day of service.

With more frequent trains, Toronto has a higher capacity both at peak and off-peak. And the greater capacity of the Toronto fleet as a whole reflects that. As does Toronto's higher ridership numbers.

Though I've stressed the differences ... the more closely you look, just how similar Montreal and Toronto are is amazing. Particularly if you ignore Toronto's streetcars and ICTS!

[Nouvellecosse]

Yes, the train frequency is where the only notable difference since as previous links show, as each train has a virtually identical crush load capacity with their current seating configuration (1442 people in Toronto vs 1440 people in Montreal). As I recall it was just in the last year or two that Toronto upgraded their signaling to allow frequencies as low as every 90 seconds, while in Montreal the minimum is 120 seconds.

So Toronto definitely does having slightly higher potential capacity, but that was never something I was denying. I was making the case that there is not a significant difference, when some people seem to assume there is a huge difference based on Montreal's smaller cars (which are basically smaller than many LRT vehicles).

What makes me wonder is how systems like Prague and Sao Paulo pack in as many riders as they do. It really boggles the mind...

[nfitz]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

As I recall it was just in the last year or two that Toronto upgraded their signaling to allow frequencies as low as every 90 seconds, while in Montreal the minimum is 120 seconds.

Toronto hasn't upgraded it's signalling yet. Minimum is 150 seconds. And they are scheduling 151 seconds. But even if they did, they can't get in and out of Bloor station much faster than that by the time that 600 people get off the train, and another 600 get on.

While I'm not sure that the two crush numbers are strictly comparable (how crushed is crushed ... the numbers I keep seeing for 30-metre long 2.65-m wide LRT cars seem to vary dramatically from report to report), there are similarities.

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

What makes me wonder is how systems like Prague and Sao Paulo pack in as many riders as they do. It really boggles the mind...

More crushing. Presumably less sensitive doors so the entire train doesn't stop when people lean on it from the inside.

[ssiguy]

Calgary is really quite stellar.

Calgary transit only serves 1.1 million but gets ridership of 523,000/day...........higher than many city several times it's size and more than 10 times as much as many equivalent sized US cities.

Calgary is proof that proper planning and good transit can result in very high ridership number even in relatively new and very wealthy cities.

[mthd]

i haven't seen any posts about the 4Q 2012 report.

the data in this period for the northeast is greatly distorted by sandy. but for areas untouched by the storm, the numbers are pretty incredible.

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

some highlights:

los angeles metro rail (heavy rail) +13.82% 4Q, +3.70% YTD
los angeles metro rail (light rail) +33.62% 4Q, +18.46% YTD :o
bay area rapid transit (heavy rail) +8.86% 4Q, +7.78% YTD
caltrain (commuter rail) +14.92% 4Q, +12.98% YTD
phoenix valley metro rail (light rail) +12.02% 4Q, +6.69% YTD
dallas area rapid transit (light rail) +22.66% 4Q, +20.75% YTD :o

it's also interesting to note that in los angeles, where rail extensions are obviously picking up tens of thousands of new trips, bus ridership isn't down at all. and some of the biggest numeric gains in existing rail systems occurred where no new extensions have recently been built (e.g. bart, with almost 40,000 new trips a day - the equivalent of houston's ENTIRE light rail system!)

[fflint]

APTA 4th Quarter 2012
Average Weekday Ridership for US Heavy-Rail Systems:

01. New York - 8,373,100
02. Washington - 901,300
03. Chicago - 728,800
04. Boston - 530,200
05. San Francisco - 418,700
06. Philadelphia - 339,700
07. Atlanta - 217,600
08. Jersey City (PATH) - 180,400
09. Los Angeles - 158,200
10. Miami - 69,100
11. Baltimore - 50,100
12. Lindenwold (PATCO) - 36,900
13. Staten Island Railway - 16,000
xx. Cleveland - NA

[fflint]

APTA 4th Quarter Report

Top 20 US Light Rail Systems by Average Weekday Ridership:

01. Boston - 222,500
02. Los Angeles - 203,400
03. San Francisco - 160,100
04. Portland - 115,400
05. Philadelphia - 113,900
06. Dallas - 103,100
07. San Diego - 87,700
08. Denver - 65,300
09. Salt Lake City - 60,600
10. St. Louis - 52,500
11. Sacramento - 49,600
12. Phoenix - 46,000
13. Houston - 37,400
14. San Jose - 33,800
15. Minneapolis - 31,500
16. Seattle - 29,800
17. Baltimore - 29,200
18. Pittsburgh - 27,600
19. Buffalo - 19,900
20. Charlotte - 14,800

[Doady]

I noticed a few of the Canadian numbers are quite inaccurate (i.e too low) since the agencies accidently reported linked trips (the Canadian standard) instead of unlinked trips (the US standard).