An actual demand for a "command performance"....well you asked for it.....

CPRR is today's A student...... price and convenience (both frequency and more access with more stations) are far more important determinants of ridership than the maximum speed and/or average "in-vehicle" travel times. I certainly know this, I've been asked to teach that class. Whether anybody left at ML or MTA really know or understand this.......?

As to the other reason cited.... Well, I expect that few of the ML lost riders went to carpools, based on my work on carpool formation and break up rates (adults really hate being dependent on other adults who want to brown nose the boss, hold up the carpool, and make you miss your kids baseball game). And, I'm gonna bet that very few who "moved" or changed job locations, were not replaced by the continuous population growth in the IE and the worsening freeway connection, so while probably true, would be "white noise" from random changes among individuals, not of the total "population" of users, and would not be the cause, of this more significant shift in ML ridership.

While ML scheduled speed is much higher and thus faster to LA from Covina, the fare is way higher. And, since wait times have three times the average disutility of transit travel times, compared to "in-vehicle" transit times, the less frequent service on ML converts into much longer wait times, and thus, more "perceived" travel time cost than the longer "in-vehicle" travel times on the Gold line.

Six minute departures from Union Station to Citrus, and continuous off peak and evening service frequencies, have to be compared to peak frequencies on ML of 35 minutes to one hour between departing trains. That "wait" time disutility would have, or should have predicted this.

However, you need to keep this "ML" shift in ridership in perspective, the success of the GL, is not related to shifts from the much slower Foothill buses or ML, more than half of these riders appear to be new riders, and this ML "shift" is a blip in total GL extension ridership.

When the GL extension goes to Pomona and Claremont, with side by side stations, I'd predict a further loss of ML passengers to LA, but more new Pasadena/No. SGV commuters connecting from ML, and travel times will be much longer from Claremont on GL compared to travel times from Citrus/Covina.... So that effect should be less, than what has been experienced.

As has been noted the increased parking costs at IE stations, and higher ML fares have created a considerable loss of ML ridership, having nothing whatsoever to do with the GL, opening, and this line has had this problem already, in the 5 years prior to the GL opening.

Poor frequencies of service, which fail to meet potential traveler needs, with fast frequent service, like the poor service levels on the ML Perris line, are a further example of how poor service levels, creating a poor quality service frequencies, with long wait times and poor connectivity, result in poor ridership.....

ML needs to look at fare structures and service frequencies, and make adjustments, ML also needs to become s fully integrated interregional Sou Cal carrier, with express and local services, and run-through services, which continue on from LAUPT (SGV to Coast line, or OC line to AV line) which would allow for more connectivity, and grow the travel base, by providing "suburb to suburb" service connecting things like Irvine to Glendale with direct through services (like LOSSAN).