Paul Krugman ponders the reason that conservatives are so enamored of the idea that speculators are driving up the price of oil:
The odds are that we're looking at a future in which energy conservation becomes increasingly important, in which many people may even -- gasp -- take public transit to work. I don't find that vision particularly abhorrent, but a lot of people, especially on the right, do.
And indeed -- gasp -- according to an article in The New York Times, "Gas Prices Send Surge of Riders to Mass Transit":
Mass transit systems around the country are seeing standing-room-only crowds on bus lines where seats were once easy to come by. ... "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.
The sudden jump in ridership comes after several years of steady, gradual growth. Americans took 10.3 billion trips on public transportation last year, up 2.1 percent from 2006. Transit managers are predicting growth of 5 percent or more this year, the largest increase in at least a decade.
It must be a socialist plot!
Unfortunately, cities and regions are short on the money needed to expand their service, as the article documents. So let's push Congress and the candidates to match the new ridership with new funding.
Nigeria’s oil pollution is stark example of resource curse, says Amnesty International
Comments View as Flat
green8659 Posted 3:40 pm
12 May 2008
Not Here
I'm sure where they are getting their observations bus transit is jumping but I live in the 2nd largest city in my state and we have shown little to no growth in 7 years.
Green and Environmental Website | Almighty Cleanse
Permalink
Colin Wright Posted 4:03 pm
12 May 2008
Certainly here...
For people who can still afford to live in Seattle, the debate rages over electric trolleys vs. streetcars vs. light rail. What we really need though is a federal electrification-of-transit project comparable to the setting up of the Interstate system.
Permalink
The Overhead Wire Posted 6:14 pm
12 May 2008
Electric Transport
I agree Colin. There needs to be much more electric transport. I think however each mode has a certain function. In Seattle for example, I believe the streetcar lines have two goals, one is quality electric transit and the other is placemaking. The placemaking is important because it gets folks walking and biking and shopping locally. As you can see on SLU already, it changes the land use.
It's Electric! TheOverheadWire.com
Permalink
WWAGD?! Posted 11:20 pm
12 May 2008
Mass Transit=Mass Taxation
Mass transit schemes, especially of the type being foisted on the Puget Sound, are really taxation "vehicles".
The game is: structure a system that is so money wasting and costly that voters feel compelled to "fix" or "extend" it every year in order to "make it better".
But it never gets better because it was never intended to work in the first place.
End result: lots of bureaucratic jobs.
Texeme.Construct(Participant)
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 12:33 am
13 May 2008
What's the difference between streetcars
and light rail? Do streetcars just have one car? In some ways that sounds nicer than light rail, because it's "cuter", maybe less intrusive, and it seems to me that you could move more people that way -- if you hire more drivers than light rail.
I noticed in the article Colin mentioned that one of the factors in streetcars' favor was that Seattle has control over streetcars, whereas the county has to sign off on buses. This is the same problem NYC had with congestion pricing -- cities should have control over their transportation needs.
Permalink
PermieWriter Posted 5:18 am
13 May 2008
BART
Here in the SF Bay Area, we've certainly seen BART ridership climb. I don't mind standing on my commute if it means more people are out of their cars.
Eat what you grow, grow what you eat
Permalink