The report was based on research and phone interviews with various transit managers.
The greastest riderships were found on the West coast of the United States.

The factors determining ridership can be divided into:
I. external factors - traffic congestion, job growth
II. internal factors - service levels, transit fares
	A. focusing efforts on most responsive areas
	B. ridership easiest to maximize in traditional transit areas
	(dense corridors, city centers, suburb-to-city alignments,
	areas with low automobile ownership)
	C. transit fares may be less important to ridership levels,
	but are still significant, especially for particular market 
	segments 
	D. greatest ridership increase is with operators who tailor
	their services to meet customers needs
	E. forming partnerships with communities, businesses,
	universities, and school, social services programs, and local
	government
	F. targeting niche markets

Cervero (1993) - deals with How distance from transit affects patronage
In Washington D.C. ridership decreases by 0.65% for every 100-ft increase
from transit.

According to transit operators, ridership increased due to:
Internal factors
1. Service adjustments
2. Pricing adaptations
3. Market and info initiatives
4. New planning orientation
5. Service coordination
External factors
1. Population change
2. New development
3. Regional Economic

Selling at bulk to users was also cited:
1. University students
2. Transit cards, monthly passes

Liu(1991) studied Portland, OR from 1971-1990 and found that:
1. per capita income
2. automobile ownership 
3. suburbinization of jobs and housing 
4. size of central city, although there is a threshold where size
is no longer a factor
He also found the following factors had the corresponding percentage
influences on transit ridership:
0.861 regional employment
0.606 revenue hours of service
-.285 average fares
0.274 gas prices

Gomez-Ibanez(1996) found 
for each percentage decrease in city center jobs, ridership decreased
1.25% to 1.75% 
each percentage per capita income increase, ridership increased 0.7%

Nelson and Nygaard(1995) noted overall housing and employment density
per acre are the most significant determinant of transit demand.

TRCP (Transit Research Cooperative Program, 1998) finds that:
	1. paying for parking is likely to increase ridership more 
	than frequency or accessibility
	2. transit frequency has a more significant affect on ridership
	than transit accessibility
	3. transit frequency and paying for parking had the greatest 
	impact on ridership
Doubling the parking prices and frequency of transit resulted in a 
tripling of ridership

San Francisco County Transportation Authority (1995)
Conducted a study to see what would happen when 
parking fees exceeded transit fares by 20 to 30 percent.
The result was commuetrs tend to use transit as opposed
to traveling alone.
Of the employees driving alone, 47% either parked for free
or had employer-paid parking 

Cervero(1990) noted that transit improvements are more likely
to increase ridership as opposed to a change in fares

Hartgen and Kinnamon (1999) ranked the top 10 transit systems 
in 1997 matching resources against outcome measures.
In other words:
[vehicles, population, fare revenue, coverage area] vs.
[operating expenses of per mile, per hour, per passenger,
per passenger mile, and also vehicles miles of service, and
ridership]
Sanata Monica CA
Chanpaign-Urbana IL
Santa Barbara CA
Milwaukee WI
Long Beach CA
Las Vegas NV
Shreveport LA
Durham NC
Newport News VA

pages 92-111 include case studies of the following cities:
Las Vegas, San Juan, San Francisco, Gainesville, Brooklyn,
Long Beach CA, Atlanta, Milwaukee, NYC, Riverside, Chicago,
and Portland

page 162 average fares in US dollars