METRO disputes “Lost Opportunity”

Last week, I wrote about my latest experience riding the METRO rails. METRO Vice President & Senior Press Officer Jerome Gray emailed me about the post and asked me to “adjust” the post in a couple of areas.

The first objection Mr. Gray had was about the “Parking Ride” sign and the employees that I described rather crudely as homeless people wearing orange vests. Mr. Gray wants you to know that METRO has leased that parking lot to Ampco Systems Parking and the employees were not METRO employees. Also, the sign that I mocked is not a METRO sign, it belongs to Ampco.

I would note that the sign is a very large, permanently mounted sign and it is the first thing you see when you pull into the main entrance to the parking lot. Also, it is directly across the street from the METRO train service center. It seems odd to me that no METRO employee ever noticed the “Parking Ride” wording or the misspelling of “responsibility” but hey, lots of things seem odd to me. I think that Mr. Gray is saying that I was wrong to state that METRO had a “lost opportunity” because METRO doesn’t control the pricing at the lot. Okay, I was wrong – my apologies.

The second observation that Mr. Gray had was in response to my referencing Tom Bazan’s opinion piece stating that METRO ridership continues to decline. Mr. Gray’s data, taken from this METRO ridership report, indicates that Fixed-route bus boardings increased in January whereas Tom reported that they decreased. Mr. Gray’s recap:

FIXED-ROUTE BUS

• Fixed-route bus boardings INCREASED by 1.6{997ab4c1e65fa660c64e6dfea23d436a73c89d6254ad3ae72f887cf583448986} for January 2011 over January 2010.  (page 52, Monthly Ridership Report,http://www.ridemetro.org/News/Documents/pdfs/Ridership{997ab4c1e65fa660c64e6dfea23d436a73c89d6254ad3ae72f887cf583448986}20Reports/0111_Ridership_Report_FY08-FY11.pdf)
• This marks the second consecutive month of fixed-route bus ridership increases – the first time since August – September 2006 that METRO has experienced ridership growth in consecutive months.
• Local boardings INCREASED by 2.7{997ab4c1e65fa660c64e6dfea23d436a73c89d6254ad3ae72f887cf583448986} – the second consecutive month when local ridership increased.
• Fixed-route bus boardings DECREASED by 0.4{997ab4c1e65fa660c64e6dfea23d436a73c89d6254ad3ae72f887cf583448986} over the first four months of the fiscal year.
• The fixed-route bus boarding DECREASE was 88,333 boardings.

FIXED-ROUTE RAIL

• Fixed-route rail boardings DECREASED by 4.5{997ab4c1e65fa660c64e6dfea23d436a73c89d6254ad3ae72f887cf583448986} in January 2011 over January 2010.
• Fixed-route rail boardings DECREASED by 4.6{997ab4c1e65fa660c64e6dfea23d436a73c89d6254ad3ae72f887cf583448986} over the first four months of the fiscal year.
• The fixed-route rail boarding DECREASE was 157,373 boardings.
• The change in fixed-route rail boardings over the past 30 months is -1,719,421 boardings  or – 6.0{997ab4c1e65fa660c64e6dfea23d436a73c89d6254ad3ae72f887cf583448986}.

Indeed, the METRO numbers do show an increase in January 2011 vs January 2010 if you look at the specific category of Fixed-route bus boardings. So I asked Tom about it and found out something very interesting. Turns out that METRO revises their methodogy from time to time – Tom was using the numbers provided by METRO last year – numbers that Isaiah Carey of FOX26 used at the time without objection from METRO. Here is a response that Tom received from METRO last year when he inquired about a similar discrepancy in a TPIA response from METRO:

Your Objection to the response to item #5 and #6.

“The November 2009 boarding numbers for Fixed-route bus and the tram listed in the Monthly Board Report you sent me are significantly different that the numbers reported to me last year for hat month in your official reply under the TPIA. Which is the true number? If the monthly board report number is the true number, then the number reported to me last year is false. If so, this will likely lead to a formal complaint to the Texas Attorney General. I respectfully ask for the true and consistent reporting of the information requested under the TPIA.”

Response to objection:

The source of information reported to you is and was the Monthly Board Report. The difference you reference is primarily a result of a change in methodology used in the Monthly Board Report to report boardings. In November 2009, METRO reported boardings to the Board based on an APC (Automated Passenger Counting) methodology. This methodology differed from the methodology used to report ridership in the National Transit Database (NTD). Subsequently, the Board Report was modified to reflect the NTO methodology. The Board now sees the same Information that is reported In the NTD. For comparative purposes, in the November 2010 Board Report, November 2009 boardings were restated to reflect the standard NTD methodology. It should also be noted that due to the tlmeframe in which the monthly Board Report is produced, the current month’s ridership Is reflected as an estimate. Once the data is fully scrubbed, the monthly ridership is finalized. This may account for small differences in the number reported.

It is easy to see why Tom would write that METRO ridership was down because that is what the METRO supplied numbers show. Perhaps METRO should issue a disclaimer with each report stating that they have changed the methodology and prior published numbers should be revised? Just a thought.

But the larger issue to me is this: is METRO ridership increasing or decreasing? Mr. Gray’s own recap states that  total ridership has decreased over the first four months of the year. The largest decreases come from Park-N-Ride and Train boardings – the very things METRO wants to focus on.

Based on METRO’s own data, shouldn’t they be concentrating their efforts on building a transit system with a lot of fixed route buses rather than giant Park-N-Ride lots feeding the train? That is what a private company would do because private companies focus on market opportunities. METRO seems to want to focus on forcing people to pay for a system that meets some urban planner’s dream but which the market doesn’t support. And that spells guaranteed loser.

At any rate, I appreciate Mr. Gray alerting me to the “inaccuracies” in my original post. If there is any one thing that I try to do, it is to present accurate information to you, the reader. To the extent that failed to do that in my post titled “Lost opportunity for METRO“, I apologize.