Bus ridership declined in 2013, but rail ridership grew, according to the 2013 National Transit Database. The Federal Transit Administration posted the database recently, which you can download in the form of data tables or in database-formatted spreadsheets. The data tables are easier to read, but the database is easier to use to make calculations of totals, averages, etc.
The database comes in 20 separate spreadsheets for such factors as ridership, operating costs, and fares. The data tables are in 30 spreadsheets. As usual, the Antiplanner has combined the most pertinent data into a single spreadsheet that includes everything from population to energy consumption. This file is similar to those for previous years, but I’ve added a few columns.
As in the past, the spreadsheet is divided into three parts. The first 1851 rows list data for every transit agency and every mode used by each agency. The middle 50 or so rows summarize the data by mode. Since a few agencies and modes failed to report energy consumption, the totals for those that did are listed separately to allow accurate calculations of average energy consumption. Finally, the last 380 rows give totals by urban area.
I’ve added a few new columns. Columns A through H identify the transit agency, modes, whether the agency directly operates (DO) or contracts out (PT) each mode, the city the agency is headquartered in, and the population of the area it serves. Columns I through M identify the main urbanized area each agency serves and the population, land area, and density of that area.
Columns N through AB are numbers taken straight from the database showing such things as annual trips, passenger miles, fares, and costs. I’ve added a column showing average weekday trips as that measure is used in a lot of transit documents. Capital costs are now broken down into three categories: maintenance (“existing service”), improvements (“expanded service”), and unclassified (apparently, a few smaller agencies don’t distinguish between existing and expanded capital spending).
It can not even super cialis affect a man’s libido. It causes dissatisfaction for both the partners in bed. online generic cialis buy viagra where see my pharmacy A many men, these days, are on the medication with Ajanta Pharma products. It is not of the solemn union of two hearts, it generic viagra no prescription is for also the attraction of physical craving.
Columns AC and AD show energy consumption and carbon dioxide emissions. These numbers are calculated from the energy spreadsheet using standard factors for BTUs and CO2 per unit of fuel. For electrical energy, I relied on Department of Energy estimates of pounds of carbon dioxide emitted per megawatt hour by state. This ranged from 4 pounds in nuclear Vermont to more than a ton in coal-burning Kentucky and West Virginia.
While my calculations of BTUs should be accurate, the CO2 calculations are not perfect. First, some transit agencies cross state lines, so if they buy their electricity from more than one state, the factors will change. The most important example of this is the Washington Metro rail system, as electrical generation in DC emits more than 2,000 pounds of CO2 per megawatt while in Maryland it is only 1,200 and Virginia just 900. Thus, the estimates of CO2 produced by the Washington Metro rail are probably somewhat high.
Second, electricity itself crosses state lines, and the DOE numbers show CO2 emissions from electricity generated within each state, not the electricity used in that state. Since Oregon gets some of its electricity from out-of-state coal-fired plants, the estimates of CO2 emitted by Portland’s light rail may be somewhat low.
Soon I’ll add columns to this spreadsheet calculating such things as average transit vehicle occupancies (passenger miles divided by vehicle revenue miles) and subsidies. But for the moment the only other calculations in the posted spreadsheet are BTUs and CO2 per passenger mile. Transit used an average of 3,232 BTUs per passenger mile in 2013, a 0.8 percent improvement over 2012. We don’t have 2013 data yet, but according to the most recent Transportation Energy Data Book, the average car in 2012 used 3,193 BTUs per passenger mile.
If you find my 2013 National Transit Database spreadsheet useful and don’t have the spreadsheets for previous years, you can download the ones for 2012, 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, and 2005. The formats are similar though each year tends to have a few new columns of data that I didn’t include in earlier ones.
The Antiplanner wrote:
While my calculations of BTUs should be accurate, the CO2 calculations are not perfect. First, some transit agencies cross state lines, so if they buy their electricity from more than one state, the factors will change. The most important example of this is the Washington Metro rail system, as electrical generation in DC emits more than 2,000 pounds of CO2 per megawatt while in Maryland it is only 1,200 and Virginia just 900. Thus, the estimates of CO2 produced by the Washington Metro rail are probably somewhat high.
I do not think there is any large-scale electric generation left in the District of Columbia these days. The coal-fired Benning Road station is in the process of being torn-down and has not run in several years, and I believe most or all other generation in D.C. is facing the same fate.
As a result, the city depends entirely on power generated in Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, Pennsylvania and Ohio (and possibly other states on the PJM Interconnection grid).
Second, electricity itself crosses state lines, and the DOE numbers show CO2 emissions from electricity generated within each state, not the electricity used in that state. Since Oregon gets some of its electricity from out-of-state coal-fired plants, the estimates of CO2 emitted by Portland’s light rail may be somewhat low.
Agreed.
PJM (and probably the other wholesale grid operators) have generator attribute tracking software already up and running. The Federal Transit Administration should mandate (through rulemaking – or – Congress should require through an amendment to the Federal Transit Administration Act) that every transit operator that takes federal dollars and uses grid power to run its transit vehicles (be it electrified railroad, heavy rail (third rail), light rail, streetcar or trolley bus) to use generator tracking to accurately assess and report to elected officials on transit agency and metropolitan planning organization boards the public what the real air quality impact and CO2 emission impact of such transit vehicles is.
Caltrain ridership has doubled in the past decade:
http://www.greencaltrain.com/2015/02/feb-10-in-palo-alto-doubling-caltrain-capacity-in-the-next-decade/
It’s more important than ever to shut down this boondoggle before it gets any more popular.
Stupid is as stupid says. Annual Caltrain ridership: approx 17 million
http://www.caltrain.com/about/statsandreports/Ridership.html
For comparison, a busy avenue or boulevard gets anywhere from 25,000 to 50,000 vehicles a day, on average. That is anywhere from 9 million to 18 million cars a year, or 13.5 million to 27 million passengers a year. That’s just a regular old 4 lane city road. Kind of makes Caltrain look like a worthless boondoggle, doesn’t it?
Example 148th ave in Bellevue WA:
https://www.bellevuewa.gov/pdf/Transportation/2010_Traffic_Data_Book.pdf
Annual average traffic volume (cars, not people), 405 at Culver City: 104,025,000, or just over 104 million. If we apply the average 1.5 people per cars, that is 156 million people driving past that interchange every year.
http://www.laalmanac.com/transport/tr26b.htm#405
Yes, I was too lazy to make the html links, just copy & paste
Metrof–ks, your reasoning is worse than a “C student.” This post is not really for you, but readers who got better grades and are above being a 5th rate “scholar” like you.
Gilfoil makes a good point. Roughly 2/3 of Caltrain ridership is during the peaks, e.g., 20,000 per day and 10,000 in each direction. At typical occupancies of 1.1 per peak automobile, this is equivalent of 2 freeway lanes in each direction at 1,800-2,000 cars per hour.
The equivalent capacity of two new “express lanes” in each direction on the Bayshore Freeway would easily exceed $5 billion for the 50-mile stretch between San Francisco and San Jose, if the actually implemented, similarly wasteful expenditures for massive freeway widening in Orange County are any guide (Reason Foundation “studies” recommending such things greatly low-ball costs for express lanes, forgetting massive changes in structures would be required).
In contrast, the Caltrain electrification project will double the system’s capacity (e.g., the same peak capacity as an 8-lane freeway) and is projected to cost about $1.5 billion, including entirely new rolling stock.
In contrast, the Caltrain electrification project will double the system’s capacity (e.g., the same peak capacity as an 8-lane freeway) and is projected to cost about $1.5 billion, including entirely new rolling stock.
It’s really astounding that microshitty even expects anyone to believe this preposterous claim. Since a 4 lane avenue carries more passengers than Caltrain, one cannot really expect any number of dubious upgrades to vault Caltrain over the capacity or usage of a 8-lane freeway (shouts & jeers of laughter). And while I provided actual links to data, microshitty just threw out made up numbers, for the most part.
And in fact, the average occupancy of a car is 1.6 passengers, not 1.5 as I roughly estimated, or 1.1 as microshitty lied in his post:
http://travelbehavior.us/Nancy-pdfs/Auto%20Occupancy.pdf
I have a much better idea for increasing capacity on roads then wasting any more money on boondoggle rails just because they make microshitty’s penis hard: institute HOT tolling on all Bay Area carpool lanes, and consider converting the HOV lanes in the 101 corridor to straight express toll lanes.
Speaking of express toll lanes, WSDOT is building them right in my neighborhood, on 405 between 1-5 in Lynwood and downtown Bellevue. The cost for the entire 15 mile corridor is currently about $440 million for creating two new lanes for 10 miles and converting the existing 8 miles of carpool lanes to HOT/express. This is in a largely heavily urbanized area and includes multiple upgrades to interchanges and overpasses. But of course, we know microshitty just makes numbers up because he doesn’t like cars.
are above being a 5th rate “scholar” like you.
According to most style manuals, 5th should be spelled out. You know. Fifth.
Roughly 2/3 of Caltrain ridership
Style manuals also require fractions to be spelled out: two-thirds.
equivalent of 2 freeway lanes
Style manuals also require spelling out single-digit numbers.
Also, only people with a small penis overuse scare quotes.
Now please go fuck yourself.
metrosucks: Are car occupancy rates static throughout the day? Since msetty was talking about peak capacity, that matters. Your link for instance says occupancy rates for home to work trips, which happen disproportionately during peak hours, are average 1.1
It also shows a regional variation, at least for ‘visitor’ trips, so occupancy rates on the corridor in question would be needed, not some national average.