This feature summarizes an informational report of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) prepared under the auspices of the ITE Transit Council. The report provides a comprehensive summary of public transit service provided to the 30 Major League ballparks in the United States and Canada, along with conclusions regarding what encourages higher public transit use.
This report provides a comprehensive summary of public transit service characteristics, special operations and usage for the 30 Major League Baseball (MLB) ballparks that existed in 2007. An interesting array of public transit services are described and analyzed. Game attendance, generalized ballpark location, public transit access features and ballpark architectural style are examined as influences on transit mode split.
Baseball and public transportation have shared histories. Going back to the 1860s and through the early part of the 1900s, baseball parks for major and minor league ball were located to be convenient to transit users. Staten Island, NY, USA, ferry riders in the 1880s were able to obtain tickets that included a free boat ride to and from the game. The Los Angeles Dodgers were nicknamed the "Trolley Dodgers," which derived from the 1880s when the team was in Brooklyn, NY. The name came from a reference to the maze of streetcars that were on the streets around the ballpark. Directly passing by Ebbets Field where the Dodgers played were nine trolley lines, and those connected with 32 more.
By the late 1950s, automobile access became more and more prominent for access to MLB games. Today, MLB teams play in 30 ballparks located in 26 urban regions-25 in the United States and one in Canada.
As shown in Table 1, 29 of the ballparks have, at minimum, regular route service that passes sufficiently near the ballpark to provide access. Two-thirds of today's ballparks (20) have some form of rail transit service (such as commuter rail, subway/heavy rail, light rail, or streetcar) within a reasonable walk.
What lessons can be applied from this analysis of transit use to MLB ballparks in future planning efforts? The following observations are offered:
* Team performance is critical. New ballparks attract peak fan interest in their early years, but for the vast majority of ballparks, this effect wears off within a few years. Other factors outside the control of the transit agency come to the fore, primarily team performance.
* Be conservative in planning estimates. Pre-construction predictions of transit mode share tend to be high. Fans are very resourceful when it comes to finding places to park. There is some evidence for downtown stadiums that fans are more likely to try public transit when the ballpark opens because of uncertainty about parking and traffic but gradually will revert to the automobile if they find reasonable parking choices available.
* Rail transit service makes a difference. Rail service close to the ballpark (no more than about three blocks' walk) will be an important factor in encouraging fans to use transit. The highest mode split for a ballpark without rail service is 2 percent in Cincinnati, OH, USA. Rail service is not a sufficient factor, however; not all ballparks with nearby rail service have mode splits above 10 percent.
* Special service for special events requires additional vehicle fleets. New light rail systems are constrained by the size of their fleet in adding service. Metro Transit in Minneapolis, MN, USA, uses operator drop-backs at the ends of the Hiawatha Line to maximize vehicles in service. Even long-established rail systems can have difficulty adding ballpark-related service during evening peak hours.
* Fluctuations in game attendance affect transit's mode share. A common theme among transit agencies is that a higher percentage of fans take transit to the ballpark for high-attendance games, and operating plans call for additional service based on expected attendance. Transit agencies must be flexible in planning appropriate levels of service before and after games.
This report was prepared for ITE's Transit Council by Daniel Boyle and Thomas F. Larwin (F). Members of the review panel that approved this report were: Alan Danaher (F), Vicky Perk, Paul Ryus (M), Jack Reilly and Martin Taub (F).
ORDERING INFORMATION
The full report (Publ. No. IR-123E) may be purchased online through the ITE Bookstore ($10 for members, $17.50 for nonmembers). To order, please visit ITE on the Web at www.ite.org or contact ITE, 1099 14th St., NW, Suite 300 West, Washington, DC 20005-3438 USA; +1 202-289-0222; fax: +1 202-289-7722.
Note: Letters in parentheses indicate ITE member grade: M-Member, F-Fellow.
© 2008 Institute of Transportation Engineers Provided by ProQuest LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Copyright 2008  Institute of Transportation Engineers. ITE Journal
