Talk:List of United States light rail systems/Archive 1

Archive 1

San Francisco???

Where do the San Francisco numbers come from? They have to be wildly inaccurate. SF's Muni Metro is one of the most-used light rail line networks in the United States. I've lived in both San Francisco and Baltimore and the idea that Baltimore's light rail is more heavily frequented than SF's is just laughable. Do these numbers perhaps refer to the SF cable cars? --Jfruh (talk) 03:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Found some better numbers here, though frustratingly not all agencies are in these stats. Will try to go through them all to find the most recent figures for each system. --Jfruh (talk) 03:45, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm almost certain many of these numbers are off. I just wanted this page made and threw down the first numbers I found, figuring that, like a good wikipedia collaborative, eventually better cited data would emerge. From now on, if everyone could include citations in the article to each new ridership number, debates over ridership will become much simpler.--Loodog 11:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

To do

Once the list settles down a bit, it might be interesting to a second list that indicates passengers per revenue mile.

Thanks, Loodog, for starting the article! --Jfruh (talk) 02:58, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

• Oooh, also the TECO Line Streetcar System ought to be on the list, though the APTA seems to not do numbers on it. I am reasonably sure that we have all the full-on light rail systems on this list now but there might be a few heritage streetcars we've missed. --Jfruh (talk) 03:22, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Major changes I just made

OK, I just redid the table to use in almost all cases the latest APTA data to get an apples-to-apples comparison, and made the sources and dates for the data more transparent. There are a few blank spots:

• I couldn't find what source was used for the River LINE or Tacoma Link ridership numbers; I left them in, but with an indicator that we need to find hard numbers somewhere.
• I am reasonably sure that the APTA's SEPTA number represent all Philly light rail (as I listed them here) and that their Portland numbers repersent both MAX and the Streetcar, but if someone has other data, please correct. The APTA lists the Muni Metro and F Market under a single "light rail" heading and the cable cars separately; I figured that the cable cars were close enough to the definition of light rail that they merited inclusion here.
• Frustratingly the APTA only offers NJT light rail numbers for "Newark." I think that this city is used in their listings not because it's just the Newark Light Rail, but because that's where NJT is headquartered? (Their commuter rail numbers, also listed under "Newark", are clearly for the whole state.) However, the numbers they give are wildly smaller than the other estimates for the three systems, so maybe they are just for the Newark Light Rail. More investigation is in order!
• Also frustratingly, there are no numbers available from APTA for Baltimore's LR since it reopened at the end of 2005. Not sure where the numbers originally on this page were from or what their date was, but I shall try to search them out; or, maybe when the Q3'06 numbers come out in December, the MD MTA will finally have gotten their acts together and come up with some data.

--Jfruh (talk) 02:45, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Excellent. I am far more satisfied with your rigorousness than my own. For the Baltimore Light Rail data, I pulled the numbers from this site for 2002, though this site lists 30,000 for 2003, though may be giving average daily rather than average weekday stats and the latter is intently anti-rail. The MTA website is annoying devoid of ridership data, far as I can tell.--Loodog 03:07, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, the key would be to find some numbers from after the full system reopened in December 2005. --Jfruh (talk) 03:24, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Dallas

Since San Fransico's cable cars are included, should Dallas's hertigage street car trolley, McKinney Avenue Transit Authority be included in Dallas's list?--FoUTASportscaster

I would think so. Probably the APTA ridership numbers cited already include it; I just forgot to add the link to the entry. --Jfruh (talk) 20:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Passenger traffic density ???

"Ridership per mile of track" might be supplemented - or replaced - by passenger traffic density. This statistic, unfortunately unfamiliar in the "English-speaking world," simply tells how many people travel, on average, over each length (mi or km) of route. It is calculated simply by dividing annual (or weekday) passenger-km or passenger-mi by the system length (km or mi, as appropriate). Note that "the number" does not change when converting between U.S. and metric units.

"Ridership" or "boarding" statistics are not adequate for comparison between systems:

"System A:" (10,000 passengers per weekday * 2-km average travel distance) / 10-km system length = 2,000 passenger-km per km of route per weekday.

"System B:" (10,000 passengers per weekday * 6-km average travel distance) / 10-km system length = 6,000 passenger-km per km of route per weekday.

The fact that System B carries three times as many passengers (on average) over each km of route (system length) has major implications, including the requirement to operate more service, higher operating cost, higher cost per passenger and so forth. Ldemery 07:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure. Feel free to make this change.--Loodog 05:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Third quarter

Third quarter numbers are out. Who wants to update the page? --FoUTASportscaster 20:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I punt for the time being (leaving tomorrow for a vacation) but if nobody has done it by Feb. 5 or so I'll take it on. Do they have recent numbers for Baltimore yet? --Jfruh (talk) 21:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll do it. I am supposed to be at work, but an injury has sidelined me tonight. --FoUTASportscaster 00:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I updated the numbers on the first graph. The report didn't contain the numbers for Newark or Pittsburgh. I don't think, though I could be wrong, that it had entries for San Jose, the Hudsen-Bergen Line, Baltimore, Trenton or Tacoma. Also, I know Little Rock has a streetcar line and it too, wasn't in the report. I added it along with the Tampa Streetcar line, but didn't give numbers.--FoUTASportscaster 02:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

If you liked List of United States Light Rail systems by ridership...

You may also be interested in a counterpart page I've created for rapid transit systems: List of United States Rapid Transit systems by Ridership--Loodog 15:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Denver Light Rail Mileage

The Denver Light Rail that I last checked was 34.9 miles. This is due to the addition of the the Southeast Corridor along Interstate 25. You people need to get your facts straight, as you think it is 25 miles, which it is not.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.20.62.117 (talk • contribs)

I have reverted your change. If you have a source that states this figure, you may change it back. Until then, we can't state numbers we have no support for.--Loodog 18:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Using the resources of the TheRide page on Wikipedia, I have calculated the total mileage for the Denver Light Rail track mileage. The Central Corridor (Downtown) is 5.3 miles, the Southwest Corridor is 8.7 miles, the Central Valley Corridor (Union Station/LoDo) is 1.8 miles, and the Southeast Corridor is 19.1 miles. The total figure comes to 34.9 miles.

Anyone can look at the evidence and see that I am right.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.20.62.117 (talk • contribs)

Editor, in order for us to post these numbers in this article, it is not sufficient to mention where they could be found, but to include exact links to webpages showing these figures.--Loodog 19:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Loodog, if there needs to be a link for the 34.9 miles figure to be on the page, then why don't the numbers on TheRide page have a source. Maybe you should see that before considering putting back the 24 miles figure. You know I am right because it has been in the local Denver, CO newspapers many times. Please take the time to go through that before changing anything. I have proven my point.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.20.62.117 (talk • contribs)

Editor, please sign your posts on talk pages with 4 tildas like so: ~~~~. If TheRide doesn't cite its sources properly, then it needs to be fixed also. One of wikipedia's official policies Wikipedia:Verifiability adamantly maintains this. Read Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden_of_evidence:

“ The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.[1] The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question. ”

That is: if you have numerous newspaper articles stating this, cite them here, or else we can't keep that figure.

--Loodog 00:02, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

76.20.62.117 00:11, 11 August 2007 (UTC)You people on Wikipedia love to keep this up, do you? Why don't you look on Google if you need a source so badly. You just have to learn to look for yourselves. I have researched my facts, look on the SE corridor light rail sight at the RTD Denver website.

Houston numbers

Why would you guys use outdated numbers, when METRO has released new figures showing a 45,000 per day ridership number? —Preceding unsigned comment added by XxTrillvillexX9 (talk • contribs) 01:16, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Consistency. The APTA report is second quarter of 2007, which is hardly outdated. This list is a comparitive list, meaning that respective differences are more important than absolute numbers. There may be more recent data from individual transit agencies, but we avoid these for two reasons:

1. The agency that reports Boston's ridership could be using different criteria or methods than the agency reporting Utah's ridership.
2. Local agencies have motivation to intentionally choose methods so as to bump their numbers.
3. More recent data might not be available for all systems, in which case we're comparing riderships from different times.

Or to use the example in front of us, notice that putting Houston's local estimates bumps it ahead of the Utah TRAX system. Take a look at the local numbers for the TRAX: 57,500, which puts it right back in 11th place. Either way, to say Houston has the 11th place spot is misleading. The only apples-to-apples comparison is to use the same source and agency for everything.--Loodog 01:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Charlotte

It just opened, of course there isn't any data. By excluding them, we should take out New Jersey's transit systems, since the APTA doesn't carry data on them. FoUTASportscaster (talk) 22:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

NJ has data, though not from APTA. Charlotte has no data.--Loodog (talk) 00:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I can bring up press clippings of its opening, legnth, and ridership. It is data, just not from the APTA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FoUTASportscaster (talk • contribs) 03:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Any ridership data you see on this page is by the quarter. Since LYNX hasn't operated for any period of time over which one can obtain reasonable data, much less, data for an entire quarter, there can be no meaningful comparison. Just wait.--Loodog (talk) 04:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

AlrightFoUTASportscaster (talk) 16:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Newbie

Okay, I'm a noob to watching this page. I heard of APTA's updated weekday ride numbers for third quarter 2007 and took the liberty to update stats here. One thing I noticed is that not all lrt systems are reported by APTA. Don't these agencies report figures to APTA. Anyway, I left those figures unchnaged where no data was provided.

One improvment to this page could be to index streetcar operations separately.

--Track Legs 10:25pm PDT 5 December 2007

I think it would be hard to separate light rail and streetcar operations, both because the APTA doesn't separate out ridership figures, and because several systems (SF's Muni, the Boston Green line, etc.) contain features of both classic streetcars and modern light rail. --Jfruh (talk) 14:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

And yes, it's very frustrating that the APTA doesn't have figures for all of them! The biggest problem is that it combines figures for systems from single agencies -- which means that all three NJ light rail systems are reported in one lump figure. --Jfruh (talk) 14:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

SF numbers: Holy cow!

According to the APTA, Muni Metro ridership in SF dropped by more than a third between Q407 to Q108 -- this in the midst of a gas price run-up. Does anyone know why this might be? Were parts of the system not operating for maintenance or something? --Jfruh (talk) 16:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Surprisingly, a lot of numbers dropped. San Diego lost 17% of its ridership. Sacramento had a minor loss. Minneapolis lost 13%. Baltimore lost 7%. Still San Francisco sticks out with 38% loss. Maybe it's a cyclical thing, 1st quarters having lower ridership than 4th quarters due to holidays? Then again, that wouldn't explain the 2% surge for LA or 4% increase in Boston.--Loodog (talk) 16:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

1st quarter is the low point for most transit systems. As for SF MUNI, something must be seriously wrong with their APTA data. Compare 2008 Q1 with 2007 Q4: they've gone from 644,100 riders per day to 3,869,700 riders per day in just 3 months! --Millbrooky (talk) 16:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

And yet according to the APTA q108 report, SF's numbers are a 12 percent improvement over Q107. It does smell kind of fishy, doesn't it? --Jfruh (talk) 17:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Update: an anon changed the SF numbers saying APTA had changed theirs. I checked and indeed, SF is now at 173,900 in the APTA report. Perhaps particularly bad typo?--Loodog (talk) 03:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

San Diego is up relative to the same quarter last year; +1%. It's down relative to the previous quarter because of seasonal change; as Millbrooky pointed out. An additional influencing factor is a fare increase on bus services; which many routes lead to Trolley stations. Btw, the Trolley will also increase their fare in September or October. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Track Legs (talk • contribs) 23:42, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Muni opening date

Hat tip to the editor who added the system opening dates, but I don't think 1980 is appropriate for the SF numbers. That's the opening date for the Market Street tunnel and the conversion to a modern light rail system, but much of the system is much older -- the Twin Peaks tunnel was opened in 1918, for instance, and I'm willing to bet that some of the streetcar trackage currently used by Muni Metro is even older than that. Also factor in the fact that the SF numbers include the Cable Car lines, the oldest of which was in operation by 1878, and the F Market, which includes some quite old streetcar trackage that didn't see regular use for decades until the F Market began running in 2000, and you have what I admit is a thorny problem as to what number to use. --Jfruh (talk) 19:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Second Quarter 2008

I updated the ridership figures for the second quarter. The graphic and ridership per mile are now outdated. I didn't update those.FoUTASportscaster (talk) 02:04, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Is there a way to have it automatically calculate ridership-per-mile? That would be very useful. bob rulz (talk) 19:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

References

Are all of these references really needed? Most of them just link to outdated ridership figures. If there is a number that's not available on the main link, I think it should just be placed directly next to the number in the table (such as what I did with the main reference). If I don't get any objections soon I will go ahead and re-format the references myself. bob rulz (talk) 19:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Ridership numbers are dated according to the "Date" column in the table. As such, I few systems with "old" data. Most of the references are there not for the ridership data, but for the system length data. References were moved into their own column to get table sort to work. Moving the refs next to each number seems to break the sorting. --Millbrooky (talk) 19:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Personally I think that it would improve the article if every reference is placed next to the info that it supports instead of into its own column. The formatting is left intact. It may be slightly less aesthetically pleasing but the references are more important. bob rulz (talk) 09:13, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Third Quarter numbers are out

[1] Also, what does the "AVG WKDY" cover--the current quarter or the year-to-date? And is "3rd Qtr Chng" comparing numbers to last year's 3rd quarter? Moreover, would it be best to use numbers averaged over an entire year, so to capture seasonal variations and not be saying that a system has higher ridership just because it does relatively better that quarter?

Comparing Q2 and Q3 numbers, MUNI jumped from 147.8 to 172.9, many others are up but Portland, Sacramento and Boston are down. Jason McHuff (talk) 07:21, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I believe it's current quarter. We do change the stats every quarter. There are some seasonal variations, but since all numbers are being updated together, it doesn't matter.--Loodog (talk) 15:14, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Uh oh, we've got it a problem...

I was just looking at the APTA ridership numbers and I realize that we've made an error here. The APTA numbers are somewhat confusing because they list transit agencies, not the names of systems, and combine reporting for multiple systems run by the same agency (thus the problems in getting separate numbers for the various NJ Transit lines). Anyway, It looks like this article is using the numbers for Sound Transit for Seattle's new South Lake Union Streetcar line. But if you look at the report, it lists ridership numbers for Sound Transit for October and November of 2007 -- but the SLUS only opened in December of 2007. You'll notice that the APTA report also lists King County Dept. of Transportation as one of the agencies, although it only has zeroes for ridership numbers. In fact, the Tacoma Link, whose numbers we've never gotten from the APTA report, is operated by Sound Transit, and the SLUS is operated by King County.

In short, I'm almost positive we've put the APTA numbers for the Tacoma Link in for the SLUS, and are using Sound Transit's own Tacoma Link numbers for the Tacoma Link. The SLUS gets zeroes on the APTA Q407 numbers because it started operating so late in the quarter, I'm assuming, and they couldn't come up with reasonable figures for it. I'm going to fix this by putting the APTA numbers in for the Link and taking the SLUS out all together until we have APTA numbers for it (as we did for the Charlotte LYNX). --Jfruh (talk) 17:19, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for any confusion, but this had already been worked out. SLUS figures are available in the Q108 numbers. --Jfruh (talk) 18:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The reason I changed things is because I really doubt the APTA Q108 estimate for the SLUS. A bulletin from the Mayor of Seattle's office [2] reporting paid ridership (not an estimate, a count) shows something completely different. If you look at the graph linked to in the Mayor's bulletin, the daily ridership numbers were 970, 1007, and 1012 riders per day (including weekends) in Jan., Feb., and Mar. of '08. The APTA estimate of 3900 per day is totally different, even if it just weekdays. I think you should leave the SLUS out, like you did the previous quarter. Diderot's dreams (talk) 20:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, we know from experience with SF Muni data that the APTA has been wrong before. Seattle Streetcar does provide a nice ridership graph. Would anybody object to changing the estimate to 996, the average for 1Q 2008? I would prefer that than leaving it out altogether. --Millbrooky (talk) 21:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. You can revert back to my edit today, if you like, that started the discussion. It was exactly that. Diderot's dreams (talk) 02:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I understand that the SLUS numbers are weird, but I don't like the precedent being set. The whole point of using the APTA numbers where available (which no doubt have any number of methodological bases that can be argued about) is to get a consistent baseline for comparison. We seem to be saying now that if someone has a "gut feeling" that the numbers are off for a system, they can change it to some other set of numbers. We've repeatedly reverted attempts to add numbers from local agencies that are higher than the APTA numbers; why allow numbers just because they're lower?

As for possible reasons for the discrepency, I can think of one off of the top of my head: as near as I can tell from its Web site, the SLUS is a proof-of-payment system -- you buy a ticket from a machine in the middle of the car and then sometimes a transit cop might come by to see if you've got a valid ticket. But if you have a transit pass good on mutiple Seattle area transit modes, then you don't need to buy a ticket. It strikes me that such passengers wouldn't register in an "actual count of paid passengers", since, short of counting every single person as they get on the car, there's no way to know that they were there. --Jfruh (talk) 12:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

It looks like APTA has corrected itself, and the SLUS numbers are now much more in line with the mayor's. Again, we really should omit APTA numbers if credible numbers from another source contract APTA's. Or at least note the discrepency. Diderot's dreams (talk) 15:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Wait, I'm confused -- aren't the other numbers on this list Q3? And if so, why hadn't the SLUS numbers been updated for Q3? (Or were the new numbers on an amended Q3 list?)

I still think that unless one of us has access to reliable sources that show that APTA is actively wrong, we should go with their numbers. As has been stated REPEATEDLY here and elsewhere, the point of this article it to comapare numbers, which is difficult if we use different numbers with different counting methodologies. The in-house numbers for other systems may vary as much from the APTA numbers, so there's no point in using APTA for some and not for others.

There was some discussion on the corresponding page for metro systems that the APTA numbers actually count "unlinked passenger trips", which, among other things, counts one passenger transferring from one line to another as two trips. This doesn't really apply to the SLUS, but it may count, say, offboardings and reboardings by one person (possible in the small footprint of the SLUS route) in non-intuitive ways. --Jfruh (talk) 16:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Fourth Quarter numbers are out

[3] Also, how about changing the 19th century opening dates for the systems that started as streetcars to the date they became modern light rail systems? For example, it seems that San Francisco Muni became light rail, including the introduction of modern vehicles, when the Market Street Subway opened. In fact, the Muni Metro article says the system began operation in 1980. Jason McHuff (talk) 04:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure why we would make the switch of dates. If a system has been operating continuously, we should reflect that, even if its been significantly modified since. There are still significant portions of, say, the Boston and San Francisco systems that, other than the vehicles in use, operate much as they did in the early 20th century; why would we want to erase that history?

For what it's worth, the 1878 date for San Francisco is for the cable car system, whose ridership is included in the APTA numbers. What would you update that date to? --Jfruh (talk) 13:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I updated the 4Q stats three weeks ago.FoUTASportscaster (talk) 00:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

List of public transit districts / authorities

Is there a page with a list of the public transit districts and authorities somewhere?

Ideally with a list of the services they oversee or some sort of other statistics (e.g. size).--Knightdaemon (talk) 20:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Portland data inconsistency

The Portland figure in the APTA table (107,600) at this writing is only for TriMet—which means only for MAX, since the Portland Streetcar is not part of the TriMet system. I was going to add the current streetcar ridership (about 12,000 daily) as a separate listing in the table, since this article includes ridership from several other streetcar-transit systems (even though all of those in the APTA table except Portland and Seattle Streetcar use heritage cars), for consistency, but then I noticed that another editor had left a note saying that any data added from non-APTA sources will be deleted. As a result, I felt obliged to delete the mileage for the Portland Streetcar from the table (and to note that PS is not covered).

Why in the world does the APTA table include such operations as Kenosha and Memphis but omit the Portland Streetcar, which carries more riders per day (about 12,000) than the bottom six or seven systems combined? Is it possible APTA is unaware of this omission from its reporting? Will this problem arise later this year for Seattle, after APTA starts giving ridership for Sound Transit's Link light rail, and the table already has a "Seattle" listing for another operator (the city of Seattle, operator of SLUS)?

I really disliked having to add a sentence to the introduction specifically saying that Portland Streetcar data is not included, but if the consensus among past contributors to this article is that all ridership figures here must come from that APTA table, then the Portland Streetcar system does seem to a unique omission by APTA, and we have to acknowledge that omission, for the sake of accuracy.

In case anyone doubts that the 107,600 figure APTA gives for "Tri-County Metro Trp Dist" (TriMet) is just for MAX (i.e. does not include the Portland Streetcar), check out this PDF of stats from TriMet's FY08 (July 2007-June 2008), showing a 12-month average of 107,400 per day (weekday boardings). [4] At certain times of year, average daily MAX ridership has been much higher. SJ Morg (talk) 05:51, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

While those two sets of numbers you cite are quite close, APTA numbers have been significantly at variance with agency numbers before, due to different counting techniques; if 12,000 is approximately correct here, we'd be talking about a ten percent difference, here -- not outside the realm of possibility that they're still counting it, just counting differently.

One of the problems with APTA's numbers is that they consolidate reporting by "agency" -- which means, for instance, that all three of New Jersey Transit's light rail systems are consolidated into a single number (which is why we use non-APTA numbers for them). There's a different ownership structure for the Portland Streetcar than there is for MAX, but I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) that the Streetcar's operation is contracted out to Tri-Met, which also operates MAX, which might get them listed under the same heading. Anyway, there's a handy e-mail address on the APTA page that contains the agency listings, so I've written them inquire whether Portland Streetcar numbers are included in the Portland numbers. Will report back here ASAP when I hear.

If for some reason APTA isn't reporting Portland Streetcar numbers, I think it would be better to use non-APTA numbers for that city, making a New Jersey-style exception. But if we do so, we should combine like numbers if possible -- i.e., don't combine the APTA MAX numbers with Tri-Met's Streetcar numbers, but rather use Tri-Met's numbers if available for both.

If APTA continues with its current setup, Seattle's numbers on this page are going to be something of a hot mess when the Link opens. They list "Sound Transit" and "King County Dept. of Transportation" separately -- the former currently being the Tacoma Link streetcar, and the latter being the SLUS. But the Seattle Link will also be operated by Sound Transit, resulting in the bizarre situation where one set of numbers will represent two systems twenty-something miles apart, while a system that has a shared station with one of those systems will be listed separately.

As for the trams vs. light rail issue, APTA lumps them under one heading as "light rail", which I think is probably smart for the purposes of this article, as the boundaries are kind of fuzzy, yes? There are plenty of modern "light rail" systems that are directly descended from old streetcar networks and have extensive sections that are indistinguishable from a tram network (Philadelphia is probably the best example). --Jfruh (talk) 15:53, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Suggest using yearly ridership statistics, instead

A heads up. I've proposed switching this and related lists to using yearly ridership statistics instead of the quarterly statistics currently employed. Discussion is on the US rapid transit talk page. --Millbrooky (talk) 17:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Something's gone screwy with the Tampa numbers

There is absolutely no way the TECO streetcar, which runs 2 miles and doesn't even operate during morning commuting hours, has 17,000 passengers a day. Previous estimates were in the range of 2,000 a day -- I think a decimal place has slipped somewhere. Has anyone had any luck contacting APTA? I sent them an email a while back about the question raised above re: the Portland Streetcar and never heard back. --Jfruh (talk) 20:42, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm on the verge of correcting TECO's daily ridership to the ~1050 that is in their report. I know that this page uses APTA numbers for consistency, but I think that when these numbers are grossly and obviously wrong they should be corrected. WinstonKap (talk) 09:01, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

32 vs. 36

The NYT article cited in the expansion proposal cites 36 light rail systems in the US, but the list on this page is as far as I know comprehensive. If anyone knows of four systems that have been left out, please add them. I suspect that cities with multiple systems -- like San Francisco's Muni Metro and streetcars, or Portland's Streetcar and MAX -- are being counted twice in that article, though counted only once here. This list also does not include the Seattle Central Link, which hasn't been running long enough to have APTA numbers. --Jfruh (talk) 02:16, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Route Miles Problem

Anyone else notice that when you try to sort the lines by route miles, the list can't identify the decimals (can't differentiate between 1.0 and 10)? I tried adding .0 to the routes that did not include them but that did not help. Anyone got any ideas?--Jkfp2004 (talk) 06:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

What to do about Sound Transit's Central Link and Tacoma Link?

So my June 2010 ridership number update for Seattle's Central Link was reverted to its May 2010 numbers with the note "Please only use official APTA numbers when available." The problem with APTA numbers for Sound Transit has been mentioned before (see "Portland data inconsistency" above and similar situation for NJ Transit numbers) in that it combines the ridership of the Central Link and Tacoma Link, two different systems 20 miles apart that are not connected together (Tacoma's more like a streetcar while Central's is a full LRT). With Central Link just celebrating its first year of passenger service, we need to decide on how to report ridership for the two and what source to use. Currently the source for Central Link is a pdf that Sound Transit publishes every month through the Seattle Times and Seattle Transit Blog. There's also the Quarterly Performance Report which is used for Tacoma Link. Oranviri (talk) 03:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

"Integrated with heavy rail system," also, double-asterisks

SF Muni is listed as being "integrated" with a heavy-rail system, but I don't particularly see how this argument can be made... there is no connection, organizational or physical, between the SF Muni and BART (except for a discounted transfer). Thoughts?

Also, a few entries have double asterisks that don't seem to correspond to anything. Tevi (talk) 18:59, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

SF Muni is integrated with BART at several stations including Embargadero,Montgomery St., Powell, and Civic Center. However, that would be a single * as BART is heavy rail. Muni is also connected with Caltrain at N Judah and 4th and King, among others so garners a **. What other entries are you referring to that might need to be adjusted? Tampasteve (talk) 19:51, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

San Francisco Muni Metro system length is wrong, but what is the right number?

See Talk:Muni_Metro#System_length_doesn.27t_seem_right. --platypeanArchcow (talk) 06:57, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

why is the Miami Metromover not included?

It has a good 30 thousand riders a day. Daniel Christensen (talk) 12:59, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

The American Public Transit Association (whose numbers we use here) classifies the Metromover as a people mover, not a light rail system. --Jfruh (talk) 17:32, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Miami metromover does not belong here

Regarding this edit, the Metromover is a people mover, which is a type of rapid transit and not light rail. It's not here for the same reason the Detroit People Mover is not here.--Louiedog (talk) 20:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Miami Metromover

Someone needs to add in the Miami Metromover. Why is this not already included? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.89.100.141 (talk) 20:23, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Because of the comment section directly above this one.--Louiedog (talk) 20:56, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

New Jersey numbers are weird

The new numbers put in for New Jersey Transit lines appear not to use unlinked trips. If you look at APTA statistics, the three New Jersey numbers (Hudson-Bergen + Newark + River Line) should add up to 70,000 or so. It might make sense to go back to the FY 2011 statistics which were there before, since those use the same metric as the rest of the table. platypeanArchcow (talk) 15:05, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Oceanside, CA

While updating the list, the APTA listed Oceanside, CA. Does this get lumped in with LA's or do we have a new entry to the list? FoUTASportscaster (talk) 06:50, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

It's a system distinct from both LA's lines and the San Diego Trolley (Oceanside is actually closer to San Diego than to LA). It should get its own entry. --Jfruh (talk) 04:03, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion it should be removed from this list entirely. The Sprinter is listed by APTA as commuter rail, which the station spacing, main line running, etc. would all point to as well. I propose taking the Sprinter off the list.Tampasteve (talk) 16:36, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Sprinter is listed by APTA as light rail, not commuter rail. The Oceanside/North County Transit District entry under commuter rail in the APTA number is for the Coaster.

I agree that the Sprinter is an edge case, but since we're using APTA numbers as our main source, we should probably follow their categorization scheme. --Jfruh (talk) 00:32, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

My mistake, if APTA lists it as Light Rail then I am good with keeping it here. Interesting case though, logically it would be more commuter rail, but if APTA has it as LR then I agree with keeping it here.Tampasteve (talk) 19:26, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, it's an edge case, as I said. It's a very similar system to the River Line in NJ, which is also covered here. On the other hand, the A-Train in Denton and the Austin Capitol MetroRail use very similar vehicles but are classified by APTA as commuter rail. It's somewhat artbitrary, but I think part of it is scheduling. Sprinter and River Line don't run trains as often as most light rail systems, but I don't think they go under 20-30 minutes ever? Meanwhile the Austin and Denton systems really are almost exclusively peak-direction commuter lines. --Jfruh (talk) 02:22, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Reworking The Table - Any Interest?

How would people feel about a fairly substantial reworking of this table? I feel like, in format (i.e. in the way the columns are set up), it should really look more like the List of United States rapid transit systems by ridership table (which is just a much better set-up table than this one).

Basically, I'm thinking the columns on this page should be (in order) Rank, System, Transit Agency, City Served, (Annual Ridership - not in the current version of this page's table, but a stat that's very easy to obtain, so optional...), Ave. Weekday Ridership (same as "Daily Boardings"), eliminate the "As of" column (that should be in the column heading for Ave. Weekday Ridership anyway; entries that aren't, say, "Q1 2013" can be indicated with a 'Note'), Route Length (or Length of System), Boardings Per Mile, Year Opened, # of Stations, (# of Lines - optional), and eliminate the Other Sources column (references should be integrated into the other cells of each row - there shouldn't be a separate column for this anyway...); the last two columns Recent Expansion and Vehicle Type can stay if people want them (though both of those column are mostly empty in the current version, and aren't exactly germane to the focus of this page, so maybe they should be cut anyway).

At this point, I'm not really planning on doing anything - I'm just trying to generate some discussion to see if there's any interest in improving this table (which I think needs it...). At the least, I'd like to see if I can get agreement to cut the Other Sources column (and definitely the As Of column), and replace those with a (Number of) Stations column (something that is definitely missing from the current version of this table.

I'd appreciate hearing anybody's thoughts on this matter. TIA.. --IJBall (talk) 03:27, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

OK, this is the format that I propose we replace the current version of the table with (it will make this table significantly more comparable to the similar List of United States rapid transit systems by ridership page and table...):

	System	Agency	City/Area served	Annual Ridership (2012)	Ave. daily weekday boardings (Q1 2013)	Route length	Ave. daily boardings per mile (Q1 2013)	Year opened	Stops	Lines	Year last expansion	Type of vehicle
1	MBTA Green Line & Ashmont–Mattapan High Speed Line***	MBTA	Boston	8.729,400	221,900	25.2 mi (40.6 km)	8,806	1897	74	2	1959	AnsaldoBreda Type 8

I'm starting to think that the "Type of vehicle" column is 'a bridge too far' for this table (it leads to "scrunching" of all of the other columns...), and it really doesn't seem germane to a table that's devoted to Light Rail Ridership figures. So if a column needs to get cut, I propose it be that one.

Thoughts?... --IJBall (talk) 04:13, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Seattle/Tacoma

Hi IJBall! First off, as someone who has had this article on a watchlist for a long time, I want to say that I very much appreciate all the work you've put into revising it. It looks great!

I do have one quibble that I think needs to be implemented though. I know due to the quirks of how APTA reports data that the Seattle and Tacoma Link numbers are lumped together. However, I think it's extremely deceiving to present them this way on the table. The two systems are over 25 miles apart; they use very different rolling stock; have different fare regimes; and are even structurally different (the Tacoma Link is a classic streetcar while the Seattle Link is almost entirely separated from car traffic for most of its route). There are very long-range plans to connect the two someday but it seems to me that for the moment they should be treated as the distinct systems they are.

Basically, it's exactly analagous to the situation with the three NJ Transit light rail systems, which have been rightly separated out on this list. I imagine there are separate numbers available for the two systems from the transit agency itself somewhere, as with NJ Transit?

Also, on a related issue, I don't have a particularly strong opinion on whether the Seattle streetcar system should be lumped together in the table with the Central Link or not, but it seems strange to treat Seattle any differently than Portland, where we do put the Streetcar and MAX in the same line in the table. The two situations are quite similar and it seems strange to treat them differently. --Jfruh (talk) 16:01, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

(Just wanted to add that I'm happy to do the grunt work of making this change if needed; I just wanted to put it out here on the talk page to see if anyone objected.) --Jfruh (talk) 16:02, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Jfruh, my take is that I have no objection to separating Central Link and Tacoma Link (for now - as you say, in a decade or two, they are supposed to be linked up in to one system!), provided up-to-date (say, within the last 1 year, or so) figures can be found for both (and the figures 'Noted', as to when the figures are from).

On Seattle Streetcar, I'd tend to leave that separated from Central Link. Again, Seattle vs. Portland is just a quirk of how APTA counts its figures (by transit agency). But on this, it would actually be better if Portland's two systems could be broken out, rather than Seattle Streetcars numbers be "bundled" with Central Link's...

Oh, and on the table "renovation" - I'm still looking at whether I can squeeze columns for Stations and (number of) Lines in (I'll figure though out today...), but it may not be possible. Regardless of that, though, I'm going to go through and add references to the Total route length stats. And I will probably add S.F.'s cable cars to this list, with the same 'Note' that I put them in to the List of North American light rail systems by ridership page's table.

And, Jfruh - thanks for the kind words!  :) --IJBall (talk) 16:16, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Portland Streetcar

So, Portland Streetcar has just been split out from Portland's MAX light rail system in the table. In general, I approve of this move, and there is no doubt that there are (non-APTA) numbers for the Portland Streetcar system available.

But, my question is, are we 100% sure that APTA numbers don't bundle MAX's and the Streetcar's numbers together (which would have the effect of now inflating MAX's numbers in the table)? I really would like to see some kind of reference confirming that APTA's Portland figures don't also include the Streetcar ridership in them (e.g. see Jfruh's post on this subject above, under the "Portland data inconsistency" heading...).

It turns out that this is an important issue, as others have made similar claims about other systems (e.g. San Francisco's), so it would be really, really useful if there was a resource (or resources) out there that listed exactly which systems and lines APTA includes in their ridership figures for the various cities, and which systems and lines APTA doesn't include.

So, is there a reference somewhere that confirms exactly what APTA is including in figures like Portland's?... --IJBall (talk) 16:36, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

In response to the last question above, it would be good if someone could find that, if one exists. In response to the first question: Yes, I am certain – and will give evidence in a moment – but there's no need to be certain that APTA's Portland figures don't include the Portland Streetcar. APTA's list names only TriMet for its Portland figures, and the Portland Streetcar is not a TriMet line, so the burden of proof falls entirely on anyone claiming that APTA's Portland figures do include the Portland Streetcar, because there's no evidence that they do. As far as I know, that was just an assumption by some Wikipedia editor.

In any case, here's evidence to prove my claim: The Portland figure currently given in this Wikipedia table is 123,200, which is the 2nd Quarter 2013 figure from APTA's report. Now, here are links to TriMet's Monthly Performance Reports for April, May and June 2013 – the same period as covered by the 2013 Q2 APTA report. Look at the first sentence of items 3 or 4 on the first page of each TriMet report. They give average weekday MAX ridership of 122,700 for April, 122,800 for May and 124,000 for June 2013. Average those three figures, and guess what it comes out to: 123,167, which rounds to 123,200, matching the APTA figure exactly. The same monthly TriMet report also includes streetcar ridership on a quarterly basis only – compiled by TriMet on behalf of the City – and if you check the May 2013 report, you'll find the streetcar ridership on the last page. It was averaging 12,700 for that quarter (March, April, May). I've followed MAX ridership figures for years, since it's the light rail system that I use personally, and it has always been clear to me that APTA figures do not include Portland Streetcar ridership, but I certainly realize that I cannot simply expect people to take my word on this, and that is why I provided the example (and supporting material) above. It's a mystery to me why APTA doesn't report Portland Streetcar ridership, but my best guess is that the system is owned and managed by a city government, not a transit agency, albeit using contractors (one of whom is TriMet) to carry out most functions. SJ Morg (talk) 08:46, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

OK, that convinces me.

On my original question, I'd love to find a reference like that from APTA (but I'm not sure one exists...). --IJBall (talk) 17:04, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Type of vehicle Column

I just want to reiterate that the current version of this table is too "squished" while including the Type of vehicle column, and I am planning to "migrate" that information to a new summary systems table that I intend to add to the Light rail in the United States page (where it is far more germane info than it is here in this Ridership table); I then plan to remove the Type of vehicle column from this page to alleviate the "squishing" in the table. However, I'm still at least a couple of weeks from getting to that.

If you have any comments or suggestions on this proposed move/"migration" of the Type of vehicle column info, please follow-up here. --IJBall (talk) 20:26, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

More on Reworking The Table

OK, I have continued to work on this project. (No one has objected so far...)

Basically, the first necessary step was updating all of the Ridership figures to Q1 2013 numbers. That is now done.

The issue is that if I want to next eliminate the As of and Other sources columns, I will need to move Reference sources and 'Notes' next to their respective stats - but, in order to do this, I am going to have to discontinue use of the 'ridership' template that this page current uses.

The upside of that 'ridership' template is that it does all of the Ave. Daily Boardings per mile calculating for you.
The downside of this 'ridership' template is that it makes Reference sourcing of the relevant stats impossible.

Therefore, I think the benefits of removing the 'ridership' template outweigh the disadvantages of removing it. (One 'workaround' for this is that I may try and put a 'Ridership' table that uses the 'ridership' template up at either my own 'Sandbox' or my own 'User' page - that would allow people to still input new figures and get new Ave. Daily Boardings per mile calculated for them...)

Anyway, I'm not going to make any changes like this... yet. But if I don't see any objections here in the coming days, I will plan on making these changes to the List of United States light rail systems by ridership table in the (near) future... --IJBall (talk) 18:47, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

OK, I've migrated the 'ridership' template over to a couple of Ridership tables on my User page (User:IJBall), one for Light rail systems and one for Heavy rail systems, in case anyone ever wants to use them to calculate Ridership per Miles stats fast – the 'ridership' template is very useful for that.

The next step for this page, however, is to stop using the 'ridership' template (ending use of the template will then allow for proper inline referencing of stats such as Route length) – I'm going to try to get over that over Labor Day weekend... --IJBall (talk) 05:42, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Done. Table is now fully renovated, and referenced as much as possible. In terms of info and referencing, I would say this table is now every bit as good as the List of United States rapid transit systems by ridership page.

I'm still not sure about the "look" of this table, though, with the inclusion of the Light Rail Type of vehicle column - the table is awfully "scrunched" with that left in there. For now, I've left the Type of vehicle column in. I may experiment with "relocating" that info from the column of this table to the Light rail in the United States page... but, for now, I'm leaving it here. If anyone else has comments, concerns or ideas, please report them back here... --IJBall (talk) 17:45, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Boston Ashmont–Mattapan High Speed Line and "Heritage streetcar"

It seems we have an IP editor who is dedicated to having the Ashmont–Mattapan High Speed Line declared as "not" being a heritage streetcar line. Except the very same article he is using to "prove" that Ashmont–Mattapan High Speed Line is not a "heritage streetcar line", explicitly mentions Boston in its United States section.

IP editor seems to be confused by the heritage streetcar's article lede (which, admittedly, needs to be rewritten - that's on my 'To do' list...), but nowhere does the lede exclude continuously operating lines like the Ashmont–Mattapan High Speed Line from the definition.

Unless there is a groundswell of opinion here in favor of the IP editor's position, I am going to revert the IP editor's changes soon - actually, I've already reverted, as IP editor's changes "broke" the 'Notes' section.

So - does anyone else object to characterizing the Ashmont–Mattapan High Speed Line as a "heritage streetcar line". --IJBall (talk) 17:42, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Heritage_streetcar#United_States mentions the use of PCC vehicles on the Mattapan line, but stops short of describing it as a relevant example of a "heritage trolley" in the United States. Indeed, the sentence reads as an aside -- a curious and tangential "factoid". It hardly suggests an authoritative classification.

I agree that the lede of Heritage_streetcar could stand to be rewritten, but its clumsy present form fully fits the widely-accepted definition of a "heritage line": a line that has been maintained, revived, or built anew AT LEAST PARTIALLY for the purpose of invoking nostalgic sentiment and infusing another era's "charm" into the civic realm. A heritage line may ALSO serve a vital transportation purpose, but the "charm factor" is fundamental to its existence.

By contrast, the Mattapan line just happens to have remained over the decades, with enough dedicated infrastructure to serve as a vital and non-replaceable link to the rapid transport network, but insufficient ridership to justify upgrading to rapid transit or even to modern light rail cars. The PCC cars, formerly used on the Green Line, continue to be used simply because they are available. There is zero "heritage" intent at play.

Thank you for engaging rationally here, and I apologize if I may have overreacted to the initial dispute.73.53.29.108 (talk) 18:32, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I too apologize if I came off as "gruff" in those revisions. Anyway, my thinking on this topic is more fleshed out at Ashmont–Mattapan High Speed Line Talk page, so maybe we should move the main discussion over there... --IJBall (talk) 18:43, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, and sorry as well. I would like to say that I think this page (and the North American and Rapid Transit equivalents) are among the most useful pages related to public transportation on the entirety of Wikipedia, and that's probably why I care so much about their accuracy. I do appreciate the extensive work you've obviously put into them.73.53.29.108 (talk) 19:05, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

One possible compromise here would be to revise the 'Note' to say "This line or system uses heritage streetcars." That's a pretty minor change that still gets across what I want to get across, while still making a concession to your viewpoint. Thoughts?... --IJBall (talk) 19:18, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

That would make sense to me, as long as the consensus is that it doesn't make the page unnecessarily confusing. (It's not quite as vital as, say, the note about the system connecting to heavy subways or commuter rail.) Two other wording options: the more generalized "heritage vehicles", or the "operated using historic streetcars/vehicles" form found in the Mattapan line's info box. I think I'd be fine with any of these, though.73.53.29.108 (talk) 19:48, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

OK, how about: "This line or system is operated using heritage streetcar vehicles."? I'll be honest – I find the word "vehicles" to be a little clunky here, and I think I'd prefer: "This line or system is operated using heritage streetcars." But, if you're OK with either of these, I'll go ahead and revise the 'Note' at both pages. --IJBall (talk) 19:58, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm actually fine with the shorter version. Perhaps it trades off a bit of accuracy for brevity (in cases where the line itself is not a streetcar), but the pages are already so huge and complicated that brevity is highly desired! 73.53.29.108 (talk) 20:46, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

OK,  Done! - 'Heritage Note' revised at both pages, as discussed. --IJBall (talk) 21:23, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Returning belatedly to say how happy I am that this worked out productively and amicably, despite my initial overreaction. This represents the exact opposite of a couple of bad-taste prior experiences (in which an editor's defensive revert of a good-faith improvement became a protracted edit war, with the clarity of the Wiki page the primary casualty).

You've helped restore my trust in Wiki process. Thanks!

(My unregistered IP does seem to change awfully often, doesn't it?) 50.181.254.76 (talk) 08:39, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

MBTA

Speaking of reworking the table .... the MBTA has most certainly expanded since 1959 (Alewife was built in the 1980's). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Figital (talk • contribs) 20:55, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

The "expansion" date listed here is in reference to just the Green Line or Ashmont-Mattapan Line. AFAIK, there has been no meaningful change in the routes of either since 1959. (In the case of the Green Line, that will eventually change when the Somerville extension opens...) --IJBall (talk) 23:08, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't know enough about the other systems to gripe about their entries, but the T stuff really needs ... clarification. Two separate lines are included, the Green Line, which is a conglomeration of ancient surface lines that feed an equally ancient subway (and viaduct), and the Mattapan-Ashmont High Speed Line, which is marketed as an extension of the Red Line Ashmont Branch (though you'd never know it from Red Line (MBTA)). I guess we can stipulate that all lines meet the definition of Light Rail. Meh. My problem comes with the dates that are applied. The surface lines that make up part of the Green Line are older than 1897 - that's just when the Tremont Street Subway opened. Likewise, what's with "last system expansion"? Should that even be there? If it should, then what about "last system contraction"? Yes, the Highland Branch of what is now the Green Line opened in '59 (after being converted from a B&A branch), but in 1969, the A-Watertown branch was truncated where it splits from the others and in 1985, the E-Arborway branch was cut back to Heath Street. I bet the SEPTA Surface-Subway Lines lines have even more truncations! As for the A-M-HSL, I don't consider it a heritage line any more than I did the E-Arborway branch when it ran PCCs. Those cars were not "brought back", they "always were".

So how do we fix it? --plaws (talk) 14:48, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

A couple of points (probably) in reverse order:

• The discussion below this resolved the last issue – the Ashmont–Mattapan line is no longer categorized as a "heritage" line here, but is ID'ed as a "line that uses heritage vehicles" – that statement is fully accurate: PPC cars are not modern streetcars, but are old-style "heritage" vehicles though ones that have been in continuous use (analogous to the situation on New Orleans' St. Charles Streetcar Line).
• The "Year last expanded" is exactly what is sounds line: the year the system was last expanded. System contractions are purposely not included in that, nor are they generally (for example, see this discussion at the List of metro systems Talk page – e.g. "Reductions, by definition, are not expansions."). Now, I suppose a 'Note' could be added to the entry in that column to note the reductions you mention, though I'm not sure that that is germane to the information this list is trying to convey and is fully covered at the specific articles on the Green Line and Ashmont–Mattapan High Speed Line.

One other point: the MBTA, themselves, categorize both of these lines as "light rail" (e.g. in the provided reference for the Green Line), so it's not just Wikipedia, or APTA doing so.

So I'm really not sure there are any issues here. If other editors disagree, I'm sure we'll here from them in due time... --IJBall (talk) 06:34, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I stipulated that they're all light rail (even if I'm not sure I agree). The thought I left out was the concern that everything is being counted the same way. That the MBTA considers it all "light rail" makes me think that the numbers for the T at least are consistent. Does SF Muni, for instance, do the same thing? Or do they divide Central Subway numbers from streetcar numbers? Of course, the other problem (for me anyway) is that, save for New Orleans, the non-new-build LRT/streetcar systems (Boston, Philly, Cleveland, SF) all had significant rapid transit portions else they might never have lived so long and that means that they are really two types of systems in a mash-up. Regardless, if the T is considering it all as light rail and if the others are doing the same then it shouldn't be an issue.

Now, on "Year last expanded". Why are contractions not germane? It seems like (in the T's case) that lopping off a whole leg and another leg below the knee (including a never-used intermodal connection) is pretty significant. I know SEPTA would LOVE to make their Subway-Surface Trolley Lines into Subway Lines and have been whittling away at routes since they rose from the ashes of the PTC. If the purpose of downplaying the contractions is to make LR "look good" then that's a pretty blatant NPOV violation! Why not "last route change"? You could even say "last route change of over 1 km" or something to eliminate inconsequential track changes vs actual service truncation. --plaws (talk) 22:54, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Oooh. I just realized that the MBTA Green Line route names and the SF Muni Metro route names don't collide. Boston had A-E and SF had (until fairly recently) J-M. Ignoring the F-Market, was there another city that was supposed to get Boeing LRVs that would have had F-I. Philly, maybe?  :-D --plaws (talk) 22:59, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

On Updating The Quarterly Ridership Figures

I am starting to wonder whether it is a good idea to update the Quarterly Ridership figures in this table every Quarter.

1. The first issue is that it's labor-intensive to update the table every Quarter, and I'm starting to think that it's not necessary to do so - wouldn't it be better if we just updated this table once or twice a year?...
2. The other problem, which became glaring with the just-added Q3 figures, is that there are seasonal variations in these light rail ridership figures which probably hobble their usefulness for comparisons, Quarter-to-Quarter.

To minimize the second issue, I am thinking that using Q2 figures year-to-year would be best for comparison's: they would minimize the winter weather effects that would lead to increases and decreases in ridership in some city's systems, and Q2 figures would also minimize the summer tourist "bumps" in ridership that cities like San Francisco's and San Diego's systems seem to see.

Does anyone have any thoughts on this proposal?... --IJBall (talk) 22:43, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

My 2-cents, I don't object to using the Q2 figures when they become available. But I would also suggest that if we are already updating the table with annual figures every Q4 we may as well update the average boardings at that time as well. In this way we only have to update the table twice a year and the numbers are always somewhat recent. -Killian441 (talk) 22:24, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree - let's plan on updating both sets of figures every time the Q4 figures become available, and the Quarterly Weekday Ridership figures let's plan on also updating every Q2 as well. --IJBall (talk) 23:35, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Way late to the party but annual stats are plenty given that links to more granular data are included, which they are. --plaws (talk) 16:19, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Annual versus quarterly rankings

Came to look up daily ridership numbers for the first time in a while, and I can't begin to imagine what's going on with the San Francisco numbers reporting. How are the quarterly numbers now showing daily ridership higher than the Boston and L.A. systems that both significantly outpace Muni Metro in annual boardings (by 30% in Boston's case)? This can't possibly be explained by 1 year's worth of job or population growth, nor by any disproportionate concentration of usage in the weekdays

Any idea what's going on? 70.97.28.160 (talk) 00:35, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't know, but I think one interpretation is that Muni Metro does have, as you suggest, huge weekday ridership numbers that plummet on weekends, while Boston and L.A. both still have much higher weekend riderships in comparison. It's the only explanation I can come up with... Though, the 2014 Annual Ridership figures, when they come out, may shed further light on this. Another possibility is, of course, that the 2013 San Francisco figure is a typo, but I don't think that's it. --IJBall (talk) 00:46, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I actually emailed APTA to try to figure out what was up with Montreal's numbers for their system (no light rail yet!). Turns out that the numbers are all self-reported by the transit agencies. And however they report it is how they report it. --plaws (talk) 23:00, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Following up on this, when we next update this list (which will be when we get the Q4 2014 figures from APTA), I believe we should switch the "ranking criteria" for this list from the Avg. Weekday Ridership figures to the Annual Ridership figures. But having watched these APTA Ridership Reports for a couple of years now, it is crazy how much the Avg. Weekday Ridership figures jump around from quarter-to-quarter (as 70.97.28.160 points out above). By contrast, the Annual Ridership figures, and thus rankings based on those, seem much more stable (from year-to-year). Therefore, I strongly think we should switch to ranking by Annual Ridership with the next update the list. --IJBall (talk) 00:20, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

That seems logical to me. Weekday ridership remains (at least in the commuter-focused States) a very important benchmark, and it is also easier for a reader to get their head around daily numbers than annual ones, so in an ideal world that might be the primary ordering criterion. But if the reported numbers are fatally unreliable, as seems to be the case in SF, there's not much one can do to salvage their usefulness.50.159.69.191 (talk) 19:53, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Tucson not on list?

Anyone know why the Tucson Sun Link isn't included in the APTA numbers? It started running last July and the Tucson bus agency (which also operates the streetcar) *is* on the APTA list. Weird. A source on the Sun Link page has a daily ridershop of 5,000, for what that's worth. --Jfruh (talk) 16:01, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Answer: Tucson's Sun Link hasn't shown up in APTA's reports yet. I'm hoping Tucson's figures will show up in APTA's Q4 2014 report, which should be released soon. If not, we'll need to add it here anyway, using whatever ridership figures can be found for it... --IJBall (talk) 17:20, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Update: No sign of Tucson's Sun Link in APTA's end-of-the-year 2014 report, so it looks like we'll have to find an outside source for its ridership figs. (Sidenote: Unhappily, Calgary isn't included in APTA's list this year either...) --IJBall (talk) 19:39, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Tampa TECO Trolley

Should probably be off-listed? It's very much a tourist trolley. My understanding has been that the hours of operation are irregular, and it primarily serves an 'events' crowd for the surrounding area. Headway at 20 minutes, uses heritage trolleys...singletrack guideway (although dedicated). Thoughts? Theblindsage (talk) 05:25, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Keep by virtue of the fact that APTA includes it with the other light rail systems in its Ridership Report (whereas, for example, Little Rock's heritage light rail system is not included, which tells me there's something about Tampa's system that APTA finds "legitimate"...). Also, 20 minute headways are actually better than some systems listed. But I would be curious to see a reference in regards to "the hours of operation [being] irregular"... In any case, as the system with by far the lowest ridership, I grant you that Tampa's TECO is "borderline". But as long as APTA includes it, I believe we should too. --IJBall (talk) 06:10, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

A while back I noticed big changes in an agency's numbers so I emailed APTA. I was told that APTA members self-report and whatever they count is whatever they count. From that, I infer that there are no rules about how heritage trolleys or light rail or rapid transit are reported. It seems like we should apply more rigor to the number here but that gets into "original research".  :-/ --plaws (talk) 03:03, 5 May 2015 (UTC)