URBAN TRANSPORT RIDERSHIP-USA: Wendell Cox Consultancy

URBAN TRANSPORT TRENDS:
UNITED STATES:
Market Share Losses Continue
3 April 1996

CONTENTS. . . . . .Tables Listed Below
I. The National Trend: 1980-1994
II. The Large Metropolitan Trend: 1990-1994
III. Smaller Metropolitan Areas with Significant Ridership
III. Highest Per Capita Ridership

TABLES . . . . .
#1.1: US Urban Transport Ridership: 1980-1994
#2.1: Change in Large Metropolitan Population & Ridership: 1990-1994
#2.2: Large Metropolitan Per Capita Ridership: 1990-1994
#2.3: Large Metropolitan Areas Ranked by Per Capita Ridership
#2.4: Large Metropolitan Areas Ranked by Per Capita Change
#3.1: Smaller Metropolitan Area Population & Ridership
#3.2: Smaller Metropolitan Area Per Capita Ridership
#4.1: Highest Per Capita Ridership in Metros Over 500,000
^^^

I. The National Trend:
Urban Transport Market Share Continues Decline
Latest United States Department of Transportation United States Bureau of the Census data indicates a continuing decline in urban transport's market share. Since 1980, per capita unlinked passenger trips have declined by nearly one-quarter. From 1990 to 1994, the annual loss was 2.1 percent, a slight improvement on the 2.3 percent average loss from 1985 to 1990, but considerably worse than the previous rate..

Table #1.1
US Urban Transport Ridership 1980-1994
Population & Ridership in Millions
Metro, Regional Rail, Tram, Bus & Trolleybus

Factor	1980	1985	1990	1994
Population	227.2	237.9	249.4	260.4
Unlinked Trips	8,532	8,276	7,735	7,411
Per Capita	37.55	34.79	31.02	28.47
Change from 1980	-	-7.4%	-17.4%	-24.2%
Period Annual Rate	-	-1.5%	-2.3%	-2.1%

DATA FOR 1920-1994

^^^

Market Share Has Deteriorated Since Subsidies Began
Since federal subsidies began nearly 30 years ago, $200 billion in federal, state and local tax support has been committed to urban transport. Since 1965:

The nation's population has risen by 35 percent.
Urban transport ridership has dropped by 14 percent
Urban transport operating costs have increased 118 percent (inflation adjusted)

^^^

II. The Large Metropolitan Trend:
Big City Market Share Dropped from 1990 to 1994 >

Based upon 1994 United States Department of Transportation and United States Bureau of the Census data, per capita urban transport ridership dropped 10.0 percent from 1990 to 1994 in the 43 metropolitan areas with more than one million residents. While population increased by 4.6 percent, urban transport ridership in the same metropolitan areas dropped by 9.4 percent. From 1990 to 1994:

Per capita ridership dropped in 33 metropolitan areas.
Per capita ridership increased in 10 metropolitan areas.
Ridership declined by 430 million rides, an amount nearly equal to total ridership in the San Francisco metropolitan area.

There was considerable variation in market share change among the metropolitan areas.

By far the largest market share increase was in Las Vegas, at 155.5 percent. During this period, Las Vegas has replaced its smaller non-competitive urban transport system with a larger competitively tendered system and has experienced a ridership increase of more than 200 percent.
One other metropolitan area, Orlando experienced an increase greater than 10 percent
Generally, the market share gains occurred in metropolitan areas with lower ridership levels (1990 per capita ridership: 19.8), and the losses occurred in metropolitan areas with higher ridership levels (1990 per capita ridership: 33.1).
The largest decline was in Nashville, at 25.8 percent. Declines of greater than 10 percent occurred in 16 metropolitan areas.
In some areas, the results reflect more favorably than would be the case in passenger journey information were available, due to the opening or expansion of rail systems and the resulting higher unlinked trip results that occur when bus passengers are required to transfer to rail services. This effect occurred in St. Louis and Los Angeles.

Note: Significance of Large Metropolitan Data
This analysis deals primarily with ridership in the nation's largest metropolitan areas (those with more than 1,000,000 residents), and is limited to "conventional" modes (metro [subway or elevated], regional rail [commuter rail], tram {street car or light rail], bus and trolleybus [electric bus}).
Urban transport's performance with respect to the policy objectives of reducing traffic congestion and air pollution is overwhelmingly a function of its performance in these metropolitan areas, which account for more than 92 percent of the nation's ridership.
US urban transport ridership data is based upon "unlinked trips" rather than passenger journeys. The impact is to overstate urban transport trips, in that a passenger trip requiring a transfer from one vehicle to another count as more than one trip.

The data for large metropolitan areas includes virtually all urban transport systems in these metropolitan areas (more than 160 systems).

^^^

Table #2.1
Change in Urban Transport Ridership and Population
US Metropolitan Areas over 1,000,000 Population
1990-1994
Population & Ridership in Millions

Metropolitan Area	1990 Population	1994 Population	1990 Ridership	1994 Ridership
Atlanta	3.0	3.3	149.5	145.4
Boston	5.5	5.5	348.6	328.2
Buffalo	1.2	1.2	30.4	30.6
Charlotte	1.2	1.3	11.7	11.9
Chicago	8.2	8.5	694.7	584.5
Cincinnati	1.8	1.9	34.9	29.2
Cleveland	2.9	2.9	79.2	65.2
Columbus	1.3	1.4	18.3	18.0
Dallas-Ft. Worth	4.0	4.4	55.5	59.0
Denver	2.0	2.2	55.7	62.2
Detroit	5.2	5.3	99.8	80.6
Greensboro-WnstnSlm-HPt	1.1	1.1	4.1	4.3
Hartford	1.2	1.2	19.7	19.2
Houston	3.7	4.1	91.1	83.9
Indianapolis	1.4	1.5	12.3	11.3
Kansas City	1.6	1.6	18.5	14.9
Las Vegas	0.9	1.1	7.4	23.7
Los Angeles	14.5	15.3	521.8	529.1
Memphis	1.0	1.1	13.9	12.1
Miami-Ft. Lauderdale	3.2	3.4	90.7	100.9
Milwaukee	1.6	1.6	67.9	59.5
Minneapolis-St. Paul	2.5	2.7	69.6	65.6
Nashville	1.0	1.1	8.6	6.9
New Orleans	1.3	1.3	82.2	72.9
New York	19.5	19.8	2,802.8	2,577.4
Norfolk-Hampton	1.4	1.5	13.5	13.4
Oklahoma City	1.0	1.0	3.5	4.0
Orlando	1.2	1.4	8.0	11.9
Philadelphia	5.9	6.0	371.8	344.7
Phoenix	2.2	2.5	32.4	34.3
Pittsburgh	2.4	2.4	86.1	73.6
Portland	1.8	2.0	60.9	71.2
Providence	1.1	1.1	16.6	15.4
Rochester	1.1	1.1	15.2	13.7
Sacramento	1.5	1.6	20.3	23.5
Salt Lake City	1.1	1.2	23.7	24.3
San Antonio	1.3	1.4	41.9	46.3
San Diego	2.5	2.6	67.1	67.7
San Francisco-San Jose	6.3	6.5	453.2	446.5
Seattle	3.0	3.2	99.9	105.9
St. Louis	2.5	2.5	44.2	47.9
Tampa	2.1	2.2	19.7	18.0
Washington-Baltimore	6.7	7.1	490.0	467.0
TOTALS	135.7	141.9	7,257.1	6,826.8

^^^

Table #2.2
Annual Per Capita Urban Transport Ridership
US Metropolitan Areas over 1,000,000 Population
1990-1994
Unlinked Trips

Metropolitan Area	1990	1994	Change
Atlanta	50.53	43.64	-13.6%
Boston	63.90	59.70	-6.6%
Buffalo	25.53	25.75	0.9%
Charlotte	10.05	9.45	-6.0%
Chicago	84.31	68.55	-18.7%
Cincinnati	19.22	15.39	-19.9%
Cleveland	27.70	22.51	-18.7%
Columbus	13.64	12.67	-7.1%
Dallas-Ft. Worth	13.76	13.53	-1.6%
Denver	28.15	28.38	0.8%
Detroit	19.25	15.34	-20.3%
Greensboro-WnstnSlm-HPt	3.95	3.84	-2.7%
Hartford	17.00	16.68	-1.9%
Houston	24.41	20.47	-16.1%
Indianapolis	8.90	7.75	-12.9%
Kansas City	11.68	9.02	-22.7%
Las Vegas	8.63	22.04	155.5%
Los Angeles	35.91	34.58	-3.7%
Memphis	13.76	11.47	-16.7%
Miami-Ft. Lauderdale	28.42	29.60	4.2%
Milwaukee	42.24	36.33	-14.0%
Minneapolis-St. Paul	27.42	24.39	-11.0%
Nashville	8.75	6.49	-25.8%
New Orleans	63.96	55.70	-12.9%
New York	143.37	130.20	-9.2%
Norfolk-Hampton	9.38	8.77	-6.5%
Oklahoma City	3.68	3.95	7.4%
Orlando	6.55	8.77	33.9%
Philadelphia	63.10	57.85	-8.3%
Phoenix	14.48	13.88	-4.1%
Pittsburgh	35.95	30.64	-14.8%
Portland	33.95	35.95	5.9%
Providence	14.66	13.65	-6.9%
Rochester	14.31	12.52	-12.5%
Sacramento	13.72	14.83	8.1%
Salt Lake City	22.11	20.66	-6.5%
San Antonio	31.65	32.25	1.9%
San Diego	26.88	25.73	-4.3%
San Francisco-San Jose	72.48	68.56	-5.4%
Seattle	33.62	32.82	-2.4%
St. Louis	17.73	18.89	6.6%
Tampa	9.50	8.34	-12.2%
Washington-Baltimore	72.84	66.24	-9.1%
TOTALS	53.48	48.11	-10.0%

^^^

Table #2.3
US Metropolitan Areas over 1,000,000
Ranked by Annual Per Capita
Urban Transport Ridership: 1994

1	New York	130.20
2	San Francisco-San Jose	68.56
3	Chicago	68.55
4	Washington-Baltimore	66.24
5	Boston	59.70
6	Philadelphia	57.85
7	New Orleans	55.70
8	Atlanta	43.64
9	Milwaukee	36.33
10	Portland	35.95
11	Los Angeles	34.58
12	Seattle	32.82
13	San Antonio	32.25
14	Pittsburgh	30.64
15	Miami-Ft. Lauderdale	29.60
16	Denver	28.38
17	Buffalo	25.75
18	San Diego	25.73
19	Minneapolis-St. Paul	24.39
20	Cleveland	22.51
21	Las Vegas	22.04
22	Salt Lake City	20.66
23	Houston	20.47
24	St. Louis	18.89
25	Hartford	16.68
26	Cincinnati	15.39
27	Detroit	15.34
28	Sacramento	14.83
29	Phoenix	13.88
30	Providence	13.65
31	Dallas-Ft. Worth	13.53
32	Columbus	12.67
33	Rochester	12.52
34	Memphis	11.47
35	Charlotte	9.45
36	Kansas City	9.02
37	Orlando	8.77
38	Norfolk-Hampton	8.77
39	Tampa	8.34
40	Indianapolis	7.75
41	Nashville	6.49
42	Oklahoma City	3.95
43	Greensboro-WnstnSlm-HPt	3.84

^^^

Table #2.4
US Metropolitan Areas over 1,000,000
Ranked by Change in Annual Per Capita
Urban Transport Ridership: 1990-1994

1
Las Vegas
155.5%

2 Orlando
33.9%

3 Sacramento
8.1%

4 Oklahoma City
7.4%

5 St. Louis
6.6%

6 Portland
5.9%

7 Miami-Ft. Lauderdale
4.2%

8 San Antonio
1.9%

9 Buffalo
0.9%

10 Denver
0.8%

11 Dallas-Ft. Worth
-1.6%

12 Hartford
-1.9%

13 Seattle
-2.4%

14 Greensboro-WnstnSlm-HPt
-2.7%

15 Los Angeles
-3.7%

16 Phoenix
-4.1%

17 San Diego
-4.3%

18 San Francisco-San Jose
-5.4%

19 Charlotte
-6.0%

20 Norfolk-Hampton
-6.5%

21 Salt Lake City
-6.5%

22 Boston
-6.6%

23 Providence
-6.9%

24 Columbus
-7.1%

25 Philadelphia
-8.3%

26 Washington-Baltimore
-9.1%

27 New York
-9.2%

28 Minneapolis-St. Paul
-11.0%

29 Tampa
-12.2%

30 Rochester
-12.5%

31 Indianapolis
-12.9%

32 New Orleans
-12.9%

33 Atlanta
-13.6%

34 Milwaukee
-14.0%

35 Pittsburgh
-14.8%

36 Houston
-16.1%

37 Memphis
-16.7%

38 Chicago
-18.7%

39 Cleveland
-18.7%

40 Cincinnati
-19.9%

41 Detroit
-20.3%

42 Kansas City
-22.7%

43 Nashville
-25.8%

^^^

III. Metropolitan Areas 500,000 to 1,000,000
Six metropolitan areas with populations of 500,000 to 1,000,000 had per capita ridership of greater than 20 in 1990 or 1994. Honolulu's per capita ridership is greater than that of all larger metropolitan areas except for New York. The per capita ridership decline in Austin is at least partially attributable to the imposition of fares on the system after 1990 (in 1990 passengers rode free).

Table #3.1
Metropolitan Areas 500,000 to 1,000,000
With Per Capita Ridership Over 20

1990
Population 1994
Population 1990
Ridership 1994
Ridership

Austin
846
964 32.1 25.9

El Paso
592
665 12.4 16.1

Honoulu
836
874 73.5 77.6

Louisville
949
981 21.7 24.9

Richmond
866
917 22.5 16.8

Tucson
667
732 13.3 17.3

^^^

Table #3.2
Metropolitan Areas 500,000 to 1,000,000

With Per Capita Ridership Over 20
Per Capita Ridership: 1990-1994

1990 1994 Change

Austin
37.94
26.83 -29.3%

El Paso
20.95
24.21 15.6%

Honoulu
87.92
88.79 1.0%

Louisville
22.87
25.38 11.0%

Richmond
25.98
18.32 -29.5%

Tucson
19.94
23.63 18.5%

^^^

IV. Metropolitan Areas Over 500,000

Table #4.1
Metropolitan Areas over 500,000
With 1994 Per Capita Ridership Over 20

1 New York
130.20

2 Honoulu
88.79

3 San Francisco-San Jose
68.56

4 Chicago
68.55

5 Washington-Baltimore
66.24

6 Boston
59.70

7 Philadelphia
57.85

8 New Orleans
55.70

9 Atlanta
43.64

10 Milwaukee
36.33

11 Portland
35.95

12 Los Angeles
34.58

13 Seattle
32.82

14 San Antonio
32.25

15 Pittsburgh
30.64

16 Miami-Ft. Lauderdale
29.60

17 Denver
28.38

18 Austin
26.83

19 Buffalo
25.75

20 San Diego
25.73

21 Louisville
25.38

22 Minneapolis-St. Paul
24.39

23 El Paso
24.21

24 Tucson
23.63

25 Cleveland
22.51

26 Las Vegas
22.04

27 Salt Lake City
20.66

28 Houston
20.47

NAVIGATION & PUBLICATION SERIES

NEW ITEMS
The Public Purpose
Demographic Briefs
Government Cost Review
Gov't Employment Fact Book
Highway & Motorway Fact Book

HOME
Intercity Transport Fact Book
Labor Market Reporter
Realities
School Transport Fact Book
Transport Fact Book

BOOK STORE
Urban Policy
Urban Transport Fact Book
Competitive Tendering Website
Intl Comp. & Ownership Conference

WEBSITE INFORMATION

Contact by E-Mail Subscribe (Free) Corrections Policy & Rights

The Public Purpose
WENDELL COX CONSULTANCY
P. O. Box 841 - Belleville, IL 62269 USA
Telephone: +1.618.632.8507 - Facsimile: +1.618.632.8538

DEMOGRAPHIA
Demographics, Development Impacts,
Market Research & Urban Policy