>According to the December 1998 Monthly Management Report, in FY 97/98, the
>F-Line carried nearly 7,900 passengers. The check date was Nov. 4, 1997.
>This apparently was the most recent check done on the F-Line. I suspect
>that the ridership is much greater now than it was then--say about 8,300 to
>8,500 riders a day. Since the F-Line opened in 1995, it has carried an
>estimated 43% greater ridership over the previous 8-Market trolley coach
>route.
>
>A Philadelphia PCC has about 43 seats; a "Torpedo" has about 50 seats. (I
>can check for sure tomorrow when I report for work.)
Then a Philadelphia PCC has the same seating capacity as a standard 40-foot
bus. Typical width for a transit bus is 8 feet 6 inches, I think. If the PCC
is 9 feet
wide, it may have more aisle space, at least, for standees. Even so, a load
factor
of 1.5 is uncivilized and a load factor of 2.0 may be technically illegal.
The
state of California has legal limits to the passenger load in vehicles (this
is
a function of weight on axles, not seating or standing space, I think). I've
been told
by one transit expert that a bus load factor of 1.6 or 1.7 may actually be a
violation of the law in California. I don't see why something like this
should
not apply to streetcars as well.
>
>In the days before The Great Meltdown, with 8-10 minute headways in the
>morning rush, we would regularly carry an estimated load factor of about
>1.50 (43 seats plus 21 standees) past Van Ness. Under the present
>service-added schedule, on my two AM peak trips (out of Castro at 7:24am
>and 8:16am), I regularly carry a full seated load through Van Ness. East
>of Van Ness, I get plenty of standees--mostly from connecting lines such as
>the 19 northbound and southbound and the 16X at 5th Street. I observe
>other cars usually carrying the same or similar loads. On my 8:16
>trip--when Metro seems to unravel the most--I often carry crush loads from
>Church eastward, and sometimes out of Castro.
>
>With that in mind, removing the five extra cars from the F will result in
>crush-standing loads or load factors of 2.0 or more on a regular-service
>basis. And if Metro fails, watch out!
>
>Since the Meltdown, Muni has NEVER done a ridership survey. How management
>can justify eliminating 40% of the service without benefit of a ride check
>is unfathomable.
L.A. MTA does extensive checks of all its lines every month. I know, I've
used
the data. I've suspected that Muni is more lackadaisical about this.
*However*, despite the importance of data for adjusting service to customer
demand,
we should recognize that there is a cost for collecting data. You have to
pay people
to do the checks and organize the data into reports. L.A. MTA may collect
data well,
but it also does nothing cheaply, largely because of its huge
professional/managerial
bureaucracy that does endless studies among other things.
And, by the way, this is one of the dangers in the model of an
"independent", "business-like"
transit agency run by a "strong manager", as proposed by RM's charter
amendment.
Corporate style managers have a tendency to empire-building. In the '40s
there was one
manager for every 30 workers in the U.S., now it's less than 10, I think.
Tom Wetzel