Average weekday ridership on Metrolink trains in June 2013 recorded a 4.1 percent decrease from a year earlier. This decline is part of a trend that started last year when ridership growth began to decelerate in November 2012, and turned negative beginning in January 2013 (Figure 1). Since January, Metrolink has been experiencing a decline in average weekday ridership every month. Losses reached 4.1 percent in June, but could be limited to less than 1 percent in July 2013.Unsurprisingly, Metrolink, which is currently set up to funnel workers on a Monday-Friday 9 to 5 schedule to Los Angeles, does not do well when Los Angeles itself has a downturn. What Metrolink ought to be doing is the same as any other business: Diversify. There's no reason that it should be impossible to get a direct Metrolink train from Irvine to Los Angeles after 5:10pm. Sure, it's possible to take Amtrak home, if one happens to be a monthly pass holder, but that's not an option for other stations such as Tustin, Orange, or Laguna Niguel.
Ridership losses are systemic and are impacting all lines, with the exception only of the Inland Empire Orange County (IEOC) Line (Figure 2.). Weekend ridership continues to be strong. Although weekend ridership has been growing by 30 percent annually, it has not translated into new weekday commuters.
These ridership losses can be traced to economic conditions, an increasing churn rate, and a decline in Metrolink’s core ridership segment: commuters traveling to Los Angeles Union Station. As these commuters defect, they are not being replaced by new commuters. Several findings support this hypothesis:
1. All lines serving Los Angeles County experience ridership losses. The only line exhibiting strong ridership growth is the IEOC Line, which does not serve Los Angeles.
2. During the fourth quarter, Monthly Pass sales declined 4.7 percent over the same quarter a year earlier.
3. The largest ridership losses were recorded for trips to and from LA Union Station, down 3.5 percent year over year.
4. Large ridership increases were recorded for trips to Orange County, but not by enough to compensate for other losses (Union Station accounts for 63% of all weekday trips).
5. Downtown Los Angeles lags the region in job growth, in part, because of the high concentration of the government sector, which has been shedding jobs.
6. Downtown Los Angeles also experiences increasing office vacancy rates. “Negative absorption rates will likely continue, meaning the vacancy rate is not likely to drop any time soon.” (Los Angeles Business Journal, July 22, 2013).
Similarly, off-peak service needs to be expanded to accommodate potential riders who are not on a 9-5 schedule. The last train from Los Angeles Union Station leaves at 6:30pm to Oceanside, 6:35pm to Riverside, and 6:40pm to East Ventura. These lines are all completely useless for someone who gets off somewhat later than a typical 9-5 job, such as many healthcare workers who work twelve hour shifts, often from 7am until 7:30pm. The San Bernardino line, with hourly frequencies, is really the only one which serves such a demographic; the Antelope Valley Line having a train at 9:25pm if the 7:40pm train is missed. Ideally this off-peak service would translate as well into consistent schedules through the entire week, Saturday and Sunday included. Those who currently work schedules requiring work on weekends are likely to find themselves either highly inconvenienced or have absolutely no rail commute option.
A related issue is the lack of through service which the "Everything feeds into Los Angeles" model necessarily leads to. While transfers are possible, they involve lengthy amounts of downtime waiting for the next train, frequently have significant amounts of time between potential trips, and are not apparent on a simple scan of the schedule. As an extension of existing runs, they should be relatively cheap for the involved counties to support; where the extension is nothing more than acknowledging an existing turn of equipment, this should involve nothing more than publicizing this fact in the schedule.
This isn't a minor concern. This is thousands of potential riders that Metrolink is currently deliberately refusing to serve by refusing to provide a proper level of service. Yes, it would most likely require greater operational subsidies. Yes, it almost certainly requires significant capital investment, if for no reason other than to have a reliable service thanks to Metrolink's deteriorating locomotive fleet. But an increase in service such as this makes Metrolink significantly more useful, attracts a higher level of patronage, removes cars from the road, and increases political support and the attraction of mass transit projects over highly expensive and dubious freeway expansion proposals. It is well worth the resulting expenses.