Gas Prices Send Surge of Riders to Mass Transit

[Ming]

I found the last couple of paragraphs here interesting. Wonder what kind of Pontiac that was? - Ming

May 10, 2008
Gas Prices Send Surge of Riders to Mass Transit
By CLIFFORD KRAUSS
The New York Times

DENVER — With the price of gas approaching $4 a gallon, more commuters are abandoning their cars and taking the train or bus instead.
Mass transit systems around the country are seeing standing-room-only crowds on bus lines where seats were once easy to come by. Parking lots at many bus and light rail stations are suddenly overflowing, with commuters in some towns risking a ticket or tow by parking on nearby grassy areas and in vacant lots.
“In almost every transit system I talk to, we’re seeing very high rates of growth the last few months,” said William W. Millar, president of the American Public Transportation Association.
“It’s very clear that a significant portion of the increase in transit use is directly caused by people who are looking for alternatives to paying $3.50 a gallon for gas.”
Some cities with long-established public transit systems, like New York and Boston, have seen increases in ridership of 5 percent or more so far this year. But the biggest surges — of 10 to 15 percent or more over last year — are occurring in many metropolitan areas in the South and West where the driving culture is strongest and bus and rail lines are more limited.
Here in Denver, for example, ridership was up 8 percent in the first three months of the year compared with last year, despite a fare increase in January and a slowing economy, which usually means fewer commuters. Several routes on the system have reached capacity, particularly at rush hour, for the first time.
“We are at a tipping point,” said Clarence W. Marsella, chief executive of the Denver Regional Transportation District, referring to gasoline prices.
Transit systems in metropolitan areas like Minneapolis, Seattle, Dallas-Fort Worth and San Francisco reported similar jumps. In cities like Houston, Nashville, Salt Lake City, and Charlotte, N.C., commuters in growing numbers are taking advantage of new bus and train lines built or expanded in the last few years. The American Public Transportation Association reports that localities with fewer than 100,000 people have also experienced large increases in bus ridership.
In New York, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority reports that ridership was up the first three months of the year by more than 5 percent on the Long Island Rail Road and the Metro-North Railroad, while M.T.A. bus ridership was up 10.9 percent. New York City subway use was up 6.8 percent for January and February. Ridership on New Jersey Transit trains was up more than 5 percent for the first three months of the year.
The increase in transit use coincides with other signs that American motorists are beginning to change their driving habits, including buying smaller vehicles. The Energy Department recently predicted that Americans would consume slightly less gasoline this year than last — for the first yearly decline since 1991.
Oil prices broke yet another record on Friday, climbing $2.27, to $125.96 a barrel. The national average for regular unleaded gasoline reached $3.67 a gallon, up from $3.04 a year ago, according to AAA.
But meeting the greater demand for mass transit is proving difficult. The cost of fuel and power for public transportation is about three times that of four years ago, and the slowing economy means local sales tax receipts are down, so there is less money available for transit services. Higher steel prices are making planned expansions more expensive.
Typically, mass transit systems rely on fares to cover about a third of their costs, so they depend on sales taxes and other government funding. Few states use gas tax revenue for mass transit.
In Denver, transportation officials expected to pay $2.62 a gallon for diesel this year, but they are now paying $3.20. Every penny increase costs the Denver Regional Transportation District an extra $100,000 a year. And it is bracing for a $19 million shortfall in sales taxes this year from original projections.
“I’d like to put more buses on the street,” Mr. Marsella said. “I can’t expand service as much as I’d like to.”
Average annual growth from sales tax revenue for the Bay Area Rapid Transit District, a rail service that connects San Francisco with Oakland, has been 4.5 percent over the last 15 years. It expects that to fall to 2 percent this year, and electricity costs are rising.
“This is a year of abundant caution and concern,” said Dorothy W. Dugger, BART’s general manager, even though ridership on the line was up nearly 5 percent in the first quarter of the year.
Nevertheless, Ms. Dugger is happy that mass transit is winning over converts. “The future of mass transit in this country has never been brighter,” she said.
Other factors may be driving people to mass transit, too. Wireless computers turn travel time into productive work time, and more companies are offering workers subsidies to take buses or trains. Traffic congestion is getting worse in many cities, and parking more expensive.
Michael Brewer, an accountant who had always driven the 36-mile trip to downtown Houston from the suburb of West Belford, said he had been thinking about switching to the bus for the last two years. The final straw came when he put $100 of gas into his Pontiac over four days a couple of weeks ago.
“Finally I was ready to trade my independence for the savings,” he said while waiting for a bus.
Brayden Portillo, a freshman at the University of Colorado Denver, drove from his home in the northern suburbs to the downtown campus in his Jeep Cherokee the entire first semester of the school year, enjoying the rap and disco music blasting from his CD player.
He switched to the bus this semester because he was spending $40 a week on gas — half his salary as a part-time store clerk. “Finally, I thought this is stupid,” he said, and he is using the savings to pay down a credit card debt.

Full Article: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/10/bu...nt&oref=slogin

[mgescuro]

Yup! It's a good thing too!!!
Transit ridership is up everywhere across the board here. And that's a good thing.

[63GrandSport001]

Honestly if I could take the train to work I would do that every day instead of driving as driving not only burns gas but puts wear on my car.

Seeing as that is not going to happen Im going to have to move closer to my job.

[Mikkoo]

Originally Posted by 63GrandSport001

Honestly if I could take the train to work I would do that every day instead of driving as driving not only burns gas but puts wear on my car.

Seeing as that is not going to happen Im going to have to move closer to my job.

If possible, the smartest thing people can do is move as close to work as they can.
Here in Northern Europe, the majority of commuters either take the metro train or
bus to get to work. The cost savings over paying $8 per gallon for your car are
enormous.

[roteague]

The bus is up about 6% here as well, and while it is noticeable, it isn't too bad yet.

I've ridden the bus here for years, it costs $2 or $40 monthly. While I live only 12 miles from downtown, it is over a mountain pass, making it almost impossible to get to any other way except by car or bus.

[Ming]

I know that pass well, roteague. I drove it back and forth in a hand-me-down Chrysler New Yorker during my senior year in high school. Go HBA!

[plane]

Originally Posted by mgescuro

Yup! It's a good thing too!!!
Transit ridership is up everywhere across the board here. And that's a good thing.

BART is first-class. If we had a BART equivalent (the Sounder isn't even close) connecting the entire Seattle-Tacoma area, the entire WA economy would light up light a fire cracker.

Or high-speed rail from San Francisco to Portland and on to Seattle.
It would transform the entire West Coast Economy.

[mgescuro]

My company gives me $100 a month in Commuter Checks to buy my train tickets. Monthly train fare is about $150.
So it's really a HUGE help!!

[ronald mcretard]

Originally Posted by Mikkoo

If possible, the smartest thing people can do is move as close to work as they can.
Here in Northern Europe, the majority of commuters either take the metro train or
bus to get to work. The cost savings over paying $8 per gallon for your car are
enormous.

I know it's not a possibility for everyone here in the U.S., but moving close to work is really the best way to go. I recently started riding my bike to work and now I am buying gas about once every two months or so, unless I have a long trip to make.

[vsd]

I would use the bus, but it turns my 20 minute commute into a 2 hour commute. I'm thinking about moving walking distance to campus for next school year, but I don't want new roommates cause the ones I have now are awesome, so I'll have to convince them first. I have also switched the non-freeway part of my commute, about 4 miles each way, to a bike. I park at a park, and bike the rest of the way, some good exercise for my lazy ass.

[aa2]

I saw two studies, one for Chicago and one for Dallas looking at their bus network efficiency. They found per passenger mile on the buses they get 31 mpg.

So more then double what your average SUV (14 mpg) gets in the city.. but significantly less then a Prius (45 mpg) gets in the city.

Electric trains and subways are a much bigger step as it comes off the power grid. Which in America is mainly coal and we produce our own coal, actually we also export coal. Also nuclear power which America is a world leader in.. and there are proposals and plans to build dozens of nuclear plants.

[mgescuro]

Originally Posted by plane

BART is first-class. If we had a BART equivalent (the Sounder isn't even close) connecting the entire Seattle-Tacoma area, the entire WA economy would light up light a fire cracker.

Or high-speed rail from San Francisco to Portland and on to Seattle.
It would transform the entire West Coast Economy.

Never heard of "The Sounder," so I looked it up. It's got about 9,000 daily ridership. BART has about 360,000.
Ridership will come in time. Then again, the Bay Area has 2x the population of SEA-TAC.

Baby steps. Let's concentrate on getting San Francisco and Los Angeles connected with High Speed Rail first.

Though, I don't see a problem with CA-HSR running from San Francisco to Portland eventually. Though, how to get it from San Francisco first? You'd need a new tunnel under the Bay -- that's about a $10 billion job alone -- though a 4-bore tube has already been proposed. 2 bores for BART, the other 2 for CA-HSR. That would get CA-HSR to Oakland and Sacramento. How to get from Sacramento to Portland? Through the Sierras? That's a lot of national park land and wilderness to go through. And it's not exactly the tamest of places in the winter. Plus it has to be in a straight line to maximize train speed.
I figure someone can figure out the proper alignment -- eventually.

Originally Posted by aa2

Electric trains and subways are a much bigger step as it comes off the power grid. Which in America is mainly coal and we produce our own coal, actually we also export coal. Also nuclear power which America is a world leader in.. and there are proposals and plans to build dozens of nuclear plants.

San Francisco's metro and trolley system is hydroelectric.
BART is on an entirely separate power grid. I don't know where their power comes from though.
Rumors are that CA's High Speed Rail will be nuclear -- similar to France.

[nailhead425]

Originally Posted by ronald mcretard

I know it's not a possibility for everyone here in the U.S., but moving close to work is really the best way to go. I recently started riding my bike to work and now I am buying gas about once every two months or so, unless I have a long trip to make.

For many folks the inner city, or urban core, is an unaccetable place to live. Apartments, rented or owned, have many drawbacks. While some may find them acceptable, the majority of Americans still want a home, a yard, a garage, a single family dwelling.

Mass transit is a great idea, but it is filled with problems. From the tax issues, the commute time, infrastructure, and land, in areas with no mass transit system in place, retrofitting is the expensive and time consuming option.

[mgescuro]

Originally Posted by nailhead425

For many folks the inner city, or urban core, is an unaccetable place to live. Apartments, rented or owned, have many drawbacks. While some may find them acceptable, the majority of Americans still want a home, a yard, a garage, a single family dwelling.

Mass transit is a great idea, but it is filled with problems. From the tax issues, the commute time, infrastructure, and land, in areas with no mass transit system in place, retrofitting is the expensive and time consuming option.

There's enough people out there who don't mind living in the urban core. There's new college grads. New retirees. Young couples. 20-30-something singles. The urban core definitely has drawbacks. But it also offers so much more than the suburbs. There's a certain vibrancy of living in the urban core. There's museums, festivals, restaurants, bars, clubs, sporting events, concerts, the arts. You name it. If a city has a true downtown core, everything is at your fingertips; everything is in 5 blocks of you.

Mass transit is a great idea. And it is not without its problems. However, a city or region that implements mass transit effectively can really reap the benefits of it. And for high density cities like New York or London or Tokyo, mass transit is the only solution. And it works best in areas of high density. Low density suburbs don't do well with mass transit.

So the best way to get around that is create Transit villages. Higher density suburban areas around a multi-modal station. You get your home with yard and garage. But you live within walking distance of the station to take your train, subway, metro, light rail, and/or bus. So you don't need your car. Also, you're walking distance to a grocery store, and some shops too. Not a bad deal.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl.../BA7CVPQ5R.DTL

[neshapop]

Originally Posted by mgescuro

There's enough people out there who don't mind living in the urban core. There's new college grads. New retirees. Young couples. 20-30-something singles. The urban core definitely has drawbacks. But it also offers so much more than the suburbs. There's a certain vibrancy of living in the urban core. There's museums, festivals, restaurants, bars, clubs, sporting events, concerts, the arts. You name it. If a city has a true downtown core, everything is at your fingertips; everything is in 5 blocks of you.

Mass transit is a great idea. And it is not without its problems. However, a city or region that implements mass transit effectively can really reap the benefits of it. And for high density cities like New York or London or Tokyo, mass transit is the only solution. And it works best in areas of high density. Low density suburbs don't do well with mass transit.

So the best way to get around that is create Transit villages. Higher density suburban areas around a multi-modal station. You get your home with yard and garage. But you live within walking distance of the station to take your train, subway, metro, light rail, and/or bus. So you don't need your car. Also, you're walking distance to a grocery store, and some shops too. Not a bad deal.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl.../BA7CVPQ5R.DTL

I agree wit you, as an European immigrant back then I was perplexed with the car addiction and stupidly built urban infrastructure and planning here. Simply here in Toronto if you don't drive and live outside downtown be prepared to be punished as a pedestrian or public transit commuter.

Subway routes are poorly laid out and traffic lights are too frequent and non synchronized, I used buses to get to work and it took me 45 minutes in the morning and more than an hour on the way back (sheesh, to have bus stop every 50 meters in apartment building zones is plain moronic). I gave up in no time...

This trend will continue but it will take many decades to fix chaos with 50X50 miles metro areas built to make single house communities with no amenities with minimum 5 minutes drive to next supermarket or so...