20000/600000 = 3.3% | No, probably WMATA doesn't have an adequate ridership improvement action plan

One of these days I will write more about WMATA's significant loss in ridership, both on train and bus.  I've written so much about the broad issues in the past that it becomes difficult to try to figure out the specifics now:

• other than unreliable service 
• extended shutdowns for rail system rebuilding
• and much less frequent service
• complemented by high cost of Metrorail + bus fares
• and the fact that unlike a car or car sharing or a taxi when riding with multiple people the cost increases 
• plus increased critical mass of locally-reached amenities in neighborhoods reducing the demand for longer journeys requiring transit
• a soupçon from the significantly reduced frequency of rail service at night and on weekends discouraging transit use in significant ways--it no longer serves as the "top of mind"* mobility choice
• which in turn increases the use of alternate modes like car sharing and taxi/ride hailing.

But I am not sure that today's Post article, "Metro says it doesn’t know what to do about falling ridership. An internal report lays out exactly what to do," is particularly helpful in getting us to the solutions.

The article is a follow up to an earlier one, "When it comes to reversing the ridership slide, Metro's leaders don't have a plan."

But this could be the headline writer's fault...

The article discloses an internal memo, and argues that an agenda for ridership improvement has already been developed by WMATA staffers.  The memo appears to be quite good at understanding the root of the problem.

-- Stabilizing and Growing Metro's Ridership, WMATA, May 2018

The system used to have about 700,000 daily subway trips and 500,000 daily bus trips and it's significantly less than that now--616,000 daily train riders and 370,000 daily bus riders in 2017 on average, according to the memo.

But the number of additional trips projected as a result of the proposed measures is small relative to the drop off in rail ridership.

An increase in daily ridership of 20,000 is a percentage increase of 3.3% on current ridership and recovers about 25% of the total number of lost rail riders.**

I don't think that level of outcome would meet the commonly accepted definition of "exactly what to do," because the other 75% of lost riders are still lost.

=========
* "Top of Mind" as a marketing term. When doing market research, there is what is called "top of mind" answers, where you ask the question "what radio station do you listen to?" and the person says WAMU NPR or Magic 102.3 unprompted.  That's also called "unaided."  Then you ask, "do you listen to [specific stations, like WTOP etc.] and they answer.

In mobility, if I were to be asked how do I get around primarily, my "top of mind" response would be "bike," then "car sharing," then "subway." 

In what we might call WMATA's best markets for potential customers: DC; the Rosslyn-Ballston corridor in Arlington; and probably from Rockville to Bethesda in Montgomery County; in DC and Arlington specifically there are an increasing number of amenities located within a 2 mile radius of neighborhoods and people aren't likely to use transit to get there.

** In David Halberstam's book The Best and the Brightest about the Vietnam War, he recounts an anecdote of how the US Army was reporting a constant stream of victories in battles, but when a journalist mapped the location of each of the "victories" he realized that the land area controlled by the US/South Vietnamese was shrinking relative to the Vietcong/North Vietnamese.

National economic impact of National Parks

While many people think of National Parks as only being in "rural" and exurban settings, there are many National Park installations in major cities including Washington, DC, Philadelphia, St. Louis, New York City, and elsewhere.

From the National Park Service, Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Watertrails Network:

National Economic Impact Report

On February 28, the National Park Service released its national report on the effects of visitor spending in national parks and communities surrounding those parks. Bottom line: visitors to the National Park System contributed more than $31 billion to local economies and supported more than 258,000 jobs in 2010. To download the national report, click on "Economic Benefits to Local Communities from national Park Visitation and Payroll, 2010."

Gateways Network Economic Impact Study Completed

The National Park Service Chesapeake Bay Office has released the report "Economic Contribution of the Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Watertrails Network to Local Economies". The economic assessment was sponsored in partnership with the Chesapeake Conservancy. The principal investigator was Dr. Daniel Stynes of Michigan State University. The report estimates the overall contribution of tourism activity to the Chesapeake Bay region using an analysis of statewide tourism studies. In addition, Dr. Stynes used modeling to estimate the local economic impacts of visitor spending for thirteen case study sites in the Gateways Network.

The report shows that tourists spent $25.7 billion in the study region in 2009, supporting 273,000 direct jobs and $6.6 million in direct payroll income. Dr. Stynes did find that economic estimates were limited by the lack of good visitor information at Gateway partner sites. As a service to Gateway partners, we asked that the full report include recommendations for collecting visitor data along with a sample questionnaire for gathering visitor segment, spending, and "visit conversion" data. There are many reasons to collect high quality visitor statistics -- to serve as a baseline, to encourage funding, to better serve and better understand your customers. If you'd like to launch a study before the high season kicks in, contact us if you'd like some help.

Download a pdf of the report's Executive Summary or the full-length Technical Report.

Interesting research/planning in London to harvest the presence of the Olympics in 2012 and future years

(Image of major Olympics construction projects in London from the Daily Mail.)

From the london 2012 meta-evaluation webpage of the Department of Culture, Media & Sport:

Meta-Evaluation of the Impacts and Legacy of the London 2012 Olympic Games and Paralympic Games

From the outset the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games have aimed to deliver a lasting legacy for the UK. DCMS has commissioned a consortium led by Grant Thornton, including Ecorys and Loughborough University, to undertake a comprehensive meta-evaluation of the impacts and legacy of the Games.

The meta-evaluation will pull together the results of evaluations of individual legacy programmes, projects and initiatives, and use these along with additional research to evaluate the overall legacy of the Games. It will aim to address overarching questions such as the impact of the Games on the UK economy and on the uptake of sport.

The study will enable Government to understand and demonstrate the long-term impact of the Games to help ensure current and future programmes provide value for money.
A post Games initial evaluation will be published shortly after the Games, in spring/summer 2013. Prior to this, a number of interim outputs will also be published. Further research will be commissioned separately to look at the effect of the Games up to around 2020.

The various reports and surveys are listed on the page and are downloadable/accessible.