2009 Transit Data

The Federal Transit Administration has published the 2009 National Transit Database, which includes loads of information on every federally subsidized transit system in America. Unfortunately, the data come on about 20 hard-to-read spreadsheets (this version, known as the “data tables,” are easier to read but harder to use for calculations).

So, once again, the Antiplanner has collected the most important data into one spreadsheet. You can also download similar spreadsheets for 2008, 2007, 2006, and 2005.

The 2009 spreadsheet includes the following raw information, by column:

A. Transit agency identification number
B. Mode (AG=automated guideway, MB=motor bus, etc.)
C. Who operates (DO=directly operated by the transit agency, PT=”purchased” or contracted out to another operator)
D. City (of agency’s headquarters)
E. State
F. Agency name
G. Agency short name
H. Population of agency service area
I. Urbanized area number
J. Urbanized area name
K. 2009 transit trips
L. Passenger miles
M. Vehicle miles
N. Vehicle revenue miles
O. Operating expenses
P. Capital expenses
Q. The share of capital expenses used to expand service
R. The share of capital expenses used to maintain existing service
S. Fares
T. Vehicles in service
U. Total seats in service
V. Standing room in service

The remaining columns are calculations based on either the previous columns or one of the other spreadsheets.

W. BTUs of energy
X. Carbon dioxide emissions
Y. Directional route miles of rail lines (note: a one-mile line that goes both north and south is two directional route miles)
Z. Average number of seats per vehicle
AA. Average standing room per vehicle
AB. Average number of occupants per vehicle
AC. Average percentage of seats filled
AD. Average percentage of total vehicle filled
AE. Operating cost per trip
AF. Capital cost per trip
AG. Fare per trip
AH. Subsidy per trip
AI. Operating cost per passenger mile
AJ. Capital cost per passenger mile
AK. Fare per passenger mile
AL. Subsidy per passenger mile
AM. BTUs per passenger mile
AN. CO2 emissions per passenger mile

The bottom of the spreadsheet includes totals by mode. I calculated two sets of totals: one using all the numbers and one for just those for which energy data were available.
How free tadalafil to overcome with Early Eructation Premature Ejaculation can cause problems in your personal life such as stress and tension but it is the physical problems that need attention as the former pass away with time and a man lead a normal sexual life thereafter. Today one of the convenient ways of get http://www.learningworksca.org/about/leadership/ viagra canadian pharmacy is go online, all a user has to do is decide to consult one. Whether we talk about the portable or inboard systems, the all GPS devices store the road maps and reconfigure the routs considering your cheap viagra no rx present location. There are many cases of children generic viagra online with cerebral palsy can still lead normal lives.
My spreadsheets for earlier years also include totals by urbanized area. I left them off this spreadsheet because this year’s National Transit Database includes a new spreadsheet with urbanized area totals. This spreadsheet doesn’t include all the information I use, so I’ll eventually add urbanized area totals to the bottom of my 2009 compilation.

A few caveats: The energy spreadsheet shows the number of gallons of Diesel, kilowatts of electricity, etc. used by each mode. I used standard conversion factors to calculate BTUs and carbon dioxide emissions. To calculate carbon dioxide emissions for electricity, I used this Department of Energy spreadsheet showing how much energy is generated by source in each state. This assumes that the electrical energy used by a transit agency comes from the same sources, on average, as the electricity generated in that state, which is probably not precisely true.

For modes, I separated out streetcars (including vintage trolleys) from light rail, which the FTA does not do. This wasn’t possible in Portland, which runs both, but is possible in most other cities.

Although the database includes capital costs for each mode, it isn’t accurate to attribute those costs against fares as capital costs can swing wildly from year to year. I nevertheless did so in calculating subsidies, but I’ll put in more precise information later.

Here are just a few results from the 2009 database. Transit fares in 2009 average $1.17 per trip or $0.22 per passenger mile. This covered only about a third of the operating costs, which were $3.43 per trip and $0.65 per passenger mile. Capital costs added another $1.61 per trip or $0.31 per passenger mile.

Transit consumed an average of 3,481 BTUs per passenger mile, making it less energy efficient than the average car (which used 3,437 BTUs per passenger mile in 2008–see p. 64; 2009 data not yet available). Buses used 4,200 BTUs per passenger mile, making them less energy efficient than the average SUV (which used about 4,000 BTUs per passenger mile). Vanpools were by far the most energy-efficient form of transit in 2009; were it except for heavy rail and commuter rail, most other forms of transit are definitely brown.

The reason transit does so poorly is that transit vehicles are rarely full. On average, only about a third of transit seats are full and, including standing room, transit vehicles are only about one-fifth occupied. As the Antiplanner recently explained, this is not likely to improve much so long as transit remains political. In any case, I hope you find these data useful.

Tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

About The Antiplanner

The Antiplanner is a forester and economist with more than fifty years of experience critiquing government land-use and transportation plans.

28 Responses to 2009 Transit Data

  1. Borealis says:

    If high speed rail does not reduce CO2 emissions and doesn’t reduce congestion, than why should it be highly subsidized? It only serves a narrow niche of needs as there are transportation options that are faster (air), cheaper (bus) or more convenient (auto).

    If folks haven’t noticed, the federal budget is coming under a lot of pressure and it is unlikely that there will be much federal money for pet projects. Sure the last burp of free spending in the stimulus bill had seed money for high speed rail, but that is unlikely to continue for a while.

    On the other hand, these monumental projects take decades and have to weather years of budget problems. They survive by hoping for surplus years where funding is easy and they can argue that sunk costs can be “saved” by more funding.

  2. C. P. Zilliacus says:

    The Antiplanner wrote:

    This assumes that the electrical energy used by a transit agency comes from the same sources, on average, as the electricity generated in that state, which is probably not precisely true.

    In some (but not all) parts of the United States, the electricity grid is controlled by a so-called regional transmission organization like the PJM Interconnection. From time to time, PJM very nicely discloses the fuel mix used by electric generating stations across its footprint (example here (.pdf, see physical page 6).

    Unfortunately, the outline of PJM’s control area does not match up precisely to state borders, but for electric transit systems in the PJM region, such data could still be useful.

  3. msetty says:

    And of course, thanks to Randal for doing all the NTD drudge work so we don’t have to.

  4. Dan says:

    IIRC the past datasets Randal helpfully provided had clear indications that density = lower VMT, despite the ardent assertions of a few pet crazies here.

    Nonetheless, Monbiot’s assertions notwithstanding, this sort of trolling has been going on for years, especially with sockpuppets created by the likes of Dennis and Alex Avery, The Epidemiology Wallah, Chris Horner, and all the other usual suspects. Lower-level operatives (e.g. from the Nuke industry) come out of the woodwork often when energy or AlGore search bots find a hit.

    The FUD industry is alive and well, spreading their key terms, dog-whistle phrases, and templated talking points. There aren’t enough members of civil society to track back all the lies they spread for the gullible rubes to parrot as fact.

    DS

  5. metrosucks says:

    msetty said:

    New line of work for the libertarian/right wing trolls at work is described here:>

    Awwww, poor wittle libtard found some left-wing blog making up the sort of lies it likes to hear. Not surprised to see that Dan is on board here too. I guess there’s not much planning going on right now in Denver!

  6. lgrattan says:

    Attention Mr. metrosucks

    Approximately 500 people, from all over the world read Randal’s daily post to learn about transportation.
    I never see anything educational in your daily posts. Please tell us about a book you have written or about a lecture you have given or a conference you have attended. Please contibute something or get off the line.

  7. JimKarlock says:

    Msetty, thanks for the lead. I have long thought that Highwayman and maybe Dan were paid to disrupt this blog.

    Thanks
    JK

  8. msetty says:

    JimKarock:
    Msetty, thanks for the lead. I have long thought that Highwayman and maybe Dan were paid to disrupt this blog.

    Karlock, you ARE clueless!

    The lead was about RIGHT WING shills cluttering up discussion boards and blog comments, in an effort to disrupt issue discussions by so-called “progressives” and left-wingers, particularly those tending towards solutions that could reduce the profits of various corporate interests.

    Perhaps YOU could make a few bucks doing what you usually do, though don’t expect to make anywhere near what, say, Wendell Cox does. There are CORPORATE “public relations” astro-turfers out there who pay people to put corporate/right wing spins on things, as Monbiot’s article points out. The leftists have yet to become less wimpy, or as smart or devious as corporate-funded libertarians and right wingers, the results of which are well-illustrated by their across-the-board ass-kicking six weeks ago.

    Of course, I don’t think any of those outfits would hire metrosucks because of his uniformly unsubtle, lame, low quality posts, but I digress.

  9. metrosucks says:

    JimKarock:
    Msetty, thanks for the lead. I have long thought that Highwayman and maybe Dan were paid to disrupt this blog.

    Karlock, you ARE clueless!

    Actually, Karlock has a good point. I am absolutely certain that Highwayman is paid to spam this blog. Dan, I think, does it because of his progressive ideology. As for the leftists thinking my posts are lame, I’m not really concerned about their opinions. I don’t feel a need to call a duck anything but a duck. The leftists like to hide behind moderate language while continuously sniping at their opponents. One gets the impression that they feel nothing but contempt for opposing ideas.

  10. msetty says:

    metrosucks:
    Some evidence of Highwayman and Dan getting $$ to do this, please. I’d like a piece of the action, if there is any!!

    How do WE know, metrosucks, that YOU aren’t a contracted plant by some right-wing think tank, being paid to disrupt the reasonable discussions on this blog? Huh? Come on, prove that you AREN’T a shill. I dare you!

    Though metrosucks may not think so, most “leftist” foundations and their fellow travelers give most of their money to various sorts of charities and very specific issues such as “social action” and environmental activities, and relatively little to developing a base of left-wing “think tanks” and so forth, unlike the massive infrastructure that has been developed by the right wing since the 1970’s.

    Metrosucks, you probably think of the Brookings Institution and similar ilk as “leftist,” (I suppose anything to the left of Attila the Hun is “leftist” to you), but it actually serves watered-down “moderate” policy prescriptions acceptable to their corporate sponsors.

    The only true “left wing” think tanks I can think of are a number of blogs–most run by non-paid folks (unfortunately)–the Institute of Policy Studies (whose budget is at least an order of magnitude less than the Heritage Foundation, for example), and “public intellectuals” such as Noam Chomsky and a few authors who make enough to support themselves off book sales.

    All told libertarians, conservatives and right-wingers outspend the “progressives” by at least a wide order of magnitude. And unlike the “vast” Professional Left, the vastly larger “Professional Right” has had consistent, coherent messaging over 4+ decades; the success of their efforts are certainly clear, particularly 8 years of Junior Bush and at least two years of upcoming bullshit from the Repugs and the Teabaggers.

  11. metrosucks says:

    Since most leftist ideas are nonsensical, it doesn’t make sense to set up huge institutes to study them. Much better to have newspapers and online sites such as the Daily Kos or Huffingotn post spread your gibberish. Actually, I’m glad about your outburst. Most leftists harbor deep resentments against people doing what they like with their own money or not wanting more of their money stolen (ie, Tea Party…..thank you for the “tea bagger insult, by the way). Your anger-laden diatribe is classic leftist class warfare type bullshit.

  12. Andrew says:

    The Antiplanner:

    “The reason transit does so poorly is that transit vehicles are rarely full. On average, only about a third of transit seats are full and, including standing room, transit vehicles are only about one-fifth occupied.”

    As I walk around my small suburban borough, I notice the same cars parked on the street for most of the day and night. I can’t imagine that most of these vehicles get more than a few minutes of use per hour, and probably mostly at 1/4th or less of their theoretical capacity.

    Perhaps because they are so wasteful, we should take action in the name of efficiency. (/sarcasm)

  13. metrosucks says:

    Note that Andrew probably doesn’t mean the (/sarcasm)….he would really like action to be taken. The difference, moron (apologies in advance for hurting any overly sensitive feelings on this blog) is that the automobiles were privately purchased, not with stolen tax dollars, like the light rail/HSR vehicles were.

  14. metrosucks says:

    Looks like all the leftist trolls have dropped in on schedule to spew their propaganda. That being said, where is Jardinero1 to remind us how Honda Civics subsidize the evil trucking industry?

  15. Andrew says:

    msetty:

    “the vastly larger “Professional Right” has had consistent, coherent messaging over 4+ decades”

    As a rightist, I find the “Professional Right” both humorous and extraordinarily disappointing and dangerous. By reading a few key websites, one can quickly pick out the new rightist party line. This party line quickly spreads among almost all rightist activists and they are soon to be found parrotting it everywhere, even if they had previously been decrying the vey actions they are now streuously promoting. The examples are so numerous and so easy to find. And it is simple communist behavior as outlined in 1984 by Orwell. No free thinking is allowed.

    Not more than a few years ago, the PC rightist line on trains was that government spending on Amtrak was ridiculous, and that we as a country would have been so much better off putting the money into High Speed Rail. See the book “Supertrains”, a number of editorials in magazines like Forbes and newspapers like the Wall Street Journal from the late 1990’s and early 2000’s, the 2000 Republican Party Platform, etc. A few months after Obama suddenly proposed a huge high speed rail program out of the blue that was just what these previous complaints about Amtrak said we should have been doing, this party line screeched to a halt and turned a compelete 180 and now all we heard from the professional right was about how horribly wasteful high speed trains are, and how we are just throwing money away by funding them.

    Another example – Section 8 Housing. Section 8 Housing was a supposedly “conservative” approach to solving the homeless problem. See “The Forgotten Americans” from the early 1980’s that was the genesis of this idea. Once the idea was actually implemented, it turned out to be a total disaster in terms of the destruction of once stable middle class urban neighborhoods, and the professional right now decries the very thing they thought up and had passed in to law.

    The professional right is nothing more than a bunch of shills operating in the exact same way as the communists, and actually spending most of their time promoting items straight out of the 10 Planks of the Communist Manifesto. For example:

    “6. Centralization of the means of communications and transportation in the hands of the State.” – i.e. government ownership of roads and airports, licensing of road and airport users, government takeover of privately run public rail and bus transportation, etc. You want to travel without the government – good luck hoofin’ it.

    “9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries, gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of population over the country.” – factory farms and crop subsidization to millionaire plantation owners, exurban sprawl caused by road building, disastrous inner city schools, and zoning, the criminalization of traditional mixed-use development, urban “renewal”, etc. Guess who came up with and continues to promote all of this nonsense.

  16. metrosucks says:

    Andrew is not a rightist.

  17. Andrew says:

    metrosucks:

    “The difference, moron is that the automobiles were privately purchased, not with stolen tax dollars, like the light rail/HSR vehicles were.”

    Surprise. When you destroy all other previously existing modes of transportation and urban development, people who previously were able to get by living with no or just one car, now are forced to buy two or three or more.

    Sure, cars are privately bought – essentially at gunpoint. Want to live somewhere safe where your children are not menaced by thugs every day and you don’t need to worry about your house being burgled every time you go out? Well, you have to move way out “here”. Yes, we are sorry there is no way to walk around out “here” or get anywhere useful without a car. But don’t worry, you are “free” to buy as many cars as you want and drive wherever you want provided Big Brother likes how much you’ve drank, how fast you want to go, how much insurance you’ve bought, etc. Isn’t it great to be so “free”? You can have any color car you want as long as it is black.

    Yes, everyone “freely” purchased all of those cars. But seriously, what was their alternative? People like you have created a country where 80%+ of all households have NO alternative to everyday mobility except the purchase of multiple cars and the comcomitant 1:80 risk of dying in highway accidents during their lifetime. That is what $100 billion in government highway spending from 1920 to 1960 obtained. Such a deal! Aren’t you glad to be “free” like this? Here is your choice! Be a shut-in unable to go anywhere, become Amish, or buy from Government Motors and Big Oil and risk your life and that of your loved ones! Hurrah for “choice”! Aren’t you glad to be so “free”???

  18. Frank says:

    “If a wise man has an argument with a fool, the fool only rages and laughs, and there is no quiet.”

    “Ridicule is the first and last argument of a fool.”

    And most importantly:

    “Never argue with a fool; onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.”

    Back on topic: anyone have anything of substance to say about the transit data presented here?

  19. metrosucks says:

    Andrew is sure sounding like a right-wing troll right about now /sarcasm. No seriously, there’s no need to pretend anymore. Let it out, that love for light rail and streetcars. Next you’ll be telling us how GM destroyed the streetcars and replaced them with buses.

  20. msetty says:

    Andrew, $100 billion for roads, try TRILLIONS over the past century, including the massive structural subsidies built into the private economy that the gummit spending on roads drove.

    I’m sure metrosucks would deny the century of social engineering, and untold trillions of “non-user fee” subsidies, by “big gummit” in favor of the automobile, which put PRIVATELY OWNED AND OPERATED PASSENGER TRAINS AND TRANSIT generally out of business by the 1960’s.

    Oh, but of course, it is “investment” when spent on roads (and airplanes), but a “subsidy” when government reparations for transit and passenger trains is offered.

    Andrew, the “Market Urbanism” blog(marketurbanism.com/) presents an empirically-based, well-reasoned, libertarian approach to urban economic issues including transportation issues, without the metrosucks/Palinesque/teabagger/”Professional Right” bullshit. I agree that this motley crew are hardly true conservatives in the traditional American sense!

    FRank, I’d like to comment on the avalanche of 2009 transit data presented by The Autoplanner, but it warrants a few days of review, at least.

  21. metrosucks says:

    FRank, I’d like to comment on the avalanche of 2009 transit data presented by The Autoplanner, but it warrants a few days of review, at least.

    Does “review” imply entering through one orifice and exiting through another?

  22. MJ says:

    There are CORPORATE “public relations” astro-turfers out there who pay people to put corporate/right wing spins on things, as Monbiot’s article points out.

    Astroturf, huh? Pot meet kettle.

  23. Andrew says:

    Randall:

    metrosucks writes: “Does “review” imply entering through one orifice and exiting through another?”

    Seriously Mr. O’Toole??? This is the level of discourse you are permitting here? Is there someway to ban this person from posting so that we can go back to discussing ideas and data from the topics you present us?

    This blog has gone seriously downhill as far as comments go since metrosucks joined us.

  24. metrosucks says:

    Yet you seem to be OK with highwayman spewing his leftist rubbish, or with the other leftists referring to Tea Party members as “tea baggers”. Talk about hypocrisy. Oh, and there’s the matter of you pretending to be a conservative, when it’s obvious you’re a progressive.

  25. Frank says:

    Andrew said: “Seriously Mr. O’Toole??? This is the level of discourse you are permitting here? Is there someway to ban this person from posting so that we can go back to discussing ideas and data from the topics you present us?”

    Andrew, have you heard of the book Kindly Inquisitors: The New Attacks on Free Thought by Jonathan Rauch? It’s a “Cato Institute Book” (I wouldn’t be surprised to find out that the Antiplanner has read it and it has influenced his philosophy) that makes a moral argument (as opposed to a legal argument) for the defense of free speech.

    On page 129, Rauch writes:

    “What do you do about people who have silly or offensive opinions…? Ignore them. Silence is science’s most effective weapon. Any scientist will tell you he would rather be attacked than ignored. When someone says that the Holocaust didn’t happen, why flatter him with attention? The world is always full of people who hold silly or obnoxious opinions and who have the means to broadcast them. That will never change….the best strategy is to marginalize them…Ignored, they lose their megaphone.”

    Like you, I once wondered why the Antiplanner allowed annoying people to post incessant and attacking messages. I realized that the Antiplanner acts on his belief system, unlike many who espouse freedom of speech but are quick to censor when they and their ideas are vociferously attacked.

    To me, we are a self-regulating community, and I wonder if the Antiplanner sees us that way; I certainly appreciate his hands-off approach to comments. When people eschew etiquette for attacks, it’s our job to help guide them back.

    Sometimes, though, people are too obnoxious to be guided, and their sole purpose seems to be to disrupt or attract attention. I have learned to ignore those people, and I suggest all who are serious about elevating the discourse here do the same. If you quit stoking the fire, it will die.

  26. the highwayman says:

    Though Metrosucks, you spew rightwing rubbish.

    Tea Party members have even called them selves fittingly enough teabaggers.

    Overall they’re not asking for stuff like less military spending or $1 per mile tolls for driving, that would really reduce tax burden.

    They have an authoritarian bent and they don’t mind using government to push other people around either.

  27. the highwayman says:

    Frank said:
    Andrew said: “Seriously Mr. O’Toole??? This is the level of discourse you are permitting here? Is there someway to ban this person from posting so that we can go back to discussing ideas and data from the topics you present us?”

    Andrew, have you heard of the book Kindly Inquisitors: The New Attacks on Free Thought by Jonathan Rauch? It’s a “Cato Institute Book” (I wouldn’t be surprised to find out that the Autoplanner has read it and it has influenced his philosophy) that makes a moral argument (as opposed to a legal argument) for the defense of free speech.

    On page 129, Rauch writes:

    “What do you do about people who have silly or offensive opinions…? Ignore them. Silence is science’s most effective weapon. Any scientist will tell you he would rather be attacked than ignored. When someone says that the Holocaust didn’t happen, why flatter him with attention? The world is always full of people who hold silly or obnoxious opinions and who have the means to broadcast them. That will never change….the best strategy is to marginalize them…Ignored, they lose their megaphone.”

    Like you, I once wondered why the Autoplanner allowed annoying people to post incessant and attacking messages. I realized that the Antiplanner acts on his belief system, unlike many who espouse freedom of speech but are quick to censor when they and their ideas are vociferously attacked.

    To me, we are a self-regulating community, and I wonder if the Autoplanner sees us that way; I certainly appreciate his hands-off approach to comments. When people eschew etiquette for attacks, it’s our job to help guide them back.

    Sometimes, though, people are too obnoxious to be guided, and their sole purpose seems to be to disrupt or attract attention. I have learned to ignore those people, and I suggest all who are serious about elevating the discourse here do the same. If you quit stoking the fire, it will die.

    THWM: Frank, Koch won’t stop funding O’Toole, so the political bullshit production goes on.

Leave a Reply