Rough Ridership

U.S. public transit overwhelmed by increased ridership, higher fuel costs

Posted at 7:37 AM on 30 May 2008

Public transit agencies across the United States are lately encountering a curious double-bind: ridership has increased quickly and dramatically, straining current capacity, and at the same time, significantly higher fuel costs have stretched many transit budgets too far. If the current ridership boom had taken hold when fuel prices were much lower, transit agencies would theoretically have been able to cope by steadily expanding service to meet demand and wouldn't need to raise fares or cut services. But, alas, since ridership surges have coincided with big increases in fuel costs, many transit providers are struggling to stay afloat. According to a survey from the American Public Transportation Association, over half of transit agencies in the U.S. are raising fares, some 20 percent are cutting services, and many of them are going millions of dollars over budget. "The difficulty of high gas prices is that it is a dual-edged sword," said APTA President William Millar. "It is bringing more ridership. ... Unfortunately, transit agencies are huge users of petroleum-based fuel."

sources: USA Today, The Wall Street Journal

ADVERTISING POLICY

Comments: (13 comments)

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have a Gristmill account, log in below. If you don't have a Gristmill account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

Mass Transit Not Sustainable

Fares on Seattle's Metro only cover 6% of operating costs. Mass Transit = Mass Taxation. More ridership simply put budgets and taxpayers further into the hole.

Private cab companies, utilizing computer routing technology, such as Texxi, are far more efficient than trains and buses, and give the user a more pleasing experience.

by jabailo at 10:10 AM on 30 May 2008

Let's actually think about that suggestion.

Large city transit carries millions of riders at a time. There is NO individual transit option that can deal with this capacity.
Even assuming you're getting 4 people to one of your cabs, that's still over 250,000 more cars on the road - which means increased congestion, usage of more gas, and a much less pleasent ride for the users.
Private cabs are a great idea for non-rush hour trips or in more lightly populated areas. They can NEVER replace high capacity transit like trains, subways, light rail, and BRT.

by edenz at 10:34 AM on 30 May 2008

(Also - re fares)

Also, one of the major reasons that fares only cover such a small part of the total budget is two reasons:

You're looking at capital and opertating expenses. If you compared the cost of the gas tax and tolls to the capital expenses of highways you'd end up with a similar number. In fact, road travel is the most highly subsidized form of travel. Next is air.
Fares have to be kept artifically low b/c they aren't competing with the total price of car ownership (price of car, maintenance, insurance, gas, etc.) just the marginal cost (i.e. the cost of one trip).

by edenz at 10:39 AM on 30 May 2008
[ Parent ]

Oh, brother...

Here we go again. Take away all the subsidies for Interstates, sewage treatment, and other associated costs of the sprawl culture and what do you get? Nothing, absolutely nothing. Do you really think automakers would really pony up for roadway construction? Let me tell you something about the privately held streetcar and bus system in St. Louis when it was taken over by a quasi-public agency in the 50's: It was profitable. In spite of the fact it was taxed on nearly all of the infrastructure needed to keep the cars running. In spite of the fact that since 1927 its' ridership had been falling. To put it another way: How do you think the auto companies would be doing today as a business model if they owned the roads and had to pay taxes on every inch of roadway, every bridge, every abutment, every easement and right-of-way, every traffic light, every vehicle used to construct and maintain the property of the Company? Oh, in addition to every building where the Companies' business is carried on. Let's not the forget the role of marketing and advertising of the automobile in the decimation of public transit in our country. Look at us now: addicted to our cars and the landscape they and their manufacturers, marketing pigs, drivers, and fellow enablers have constructed for us. Just another thought: Marketing is one of the most spectacularly deceitful, corrupt, and craven perversions of human thought in the entirety of human history.

The mellotron is your friend.

by archigeek at 10:41 AM on 30 May 2008

More would ride taxis

Take away all the subsidies for Interstates, sewage treatment, and other associated costs of the sprawl culture and what do you get? Nothing, absolutely nothing. Do you really think automakers would really pony up for roadway construction?

But we're already paying for all that stuff.

What's ridiculous is having to create a whole 'nother system like rail that is less flexible and soaks our wallets!

Even assuming you're getting 4 people to one of your cabs, that's still over 250,000 more cars on the road - which means increased congestion

Not if I am also getting the driving public -- who will now be offered door to door service to use my cabs. And buses take up a lot of area on the roadway, are heavy and take a lot of wear and tear and maintainance and can run empty for many trips...they are also costly to build and only available from a few specialty companies.

by jabailo at 10:58 AM on 30 May 2008

R Rated Comment

OK, you've been warned. What a fucked up society this is that money would be a concern on this issue. Public transit should be funded by whatever means necessary, beginning with a large tax on gasoline for private motor vehicles and another progressive one on the businesses whose employees are brought to work on public transit, with big businesses paying the most.

Civilized humans are far too obsessed with their little green pieces of paper. Life is what's important, not money, and getting people out of cars and onto mass transit will save many lives, beginning those of the clean air spirits (what civilized white man calls "molecules").

As to John Bailo's comment and the responses to it, cabs are even worse than private motor vehicles, because they drive around looking for and getting fares. At least operators of private cars just drive them directly to where they're going. This BS that cabs are public transit is just a lie propagated by the taxicab industry.

by Wolverine at 11:22 AM on 30 May 2008

Lets Work Together

There isn't enough cheap metal in the world for people to be able to own their own cars. Even worse, highways and bridges are crumbling and no one wants to pay for repairs much less new roads . Due to overuse autoimmobile is getting slower and slower each year while rail is getting faster and faster.

It is time we work together and pool our resources and create great public transit and high-speed rail systems.

by racc at 12:18 PM on 30 May 2008

Automobiles=mass taxation

Fares on Seattle's Metro only cover 6% of operating costs. Mass Transit = Mass Taxation. More ridership simply put budgets and taxpayers further into the hole.

Ya wanna guess at much money the government spends to help keep the American automobile companies afloat?

Almost as much as we spend on mass transit.

Plus more automobiles = more and wider roads = more construction and maintenance = more taxes and tolls.

Automobile travel costs American taxpayers many times more than mass transit does.

by Tasermons Partner at 12:41 PM on 30 May 2008

Gangway for Miracles!

...cabs are even worse than private motor vehicles, because they drive around looking for and getting fares. At least operators of private cars just drive them directly to where they're going. This BS that cabs are public transit is just a lie propagated by the taxicab industry.

In an age of cell phones and GPS, it's really not necessary to "drive around" looking for fares.

Also, with taxis we can instantly convert drivers to the latest plugin-hybrid technology. Hybrids and fuel cells and electrics are ideal for cabs which must sit idle in dense city traffic.

So, the taxi becomes a dual-substitute both for buses and private cars. It takes more people out of having to own a second car, or using a SOV for going to work. It lets mom do weekly grocery shopping and daughter go to the mall. It keeps teens from having to have a car and from drunk driving in the suburbs.

We need to deregulate mass transit -- rid ourselves of the current system and de-hamper the future of computer dispatched high efficiency cabs.

by jabailo at 12:46 PM on 30 May 2008
[ Parent ]

Some taxis are hybrids...

...but only in a few cities (like New York). The vast majority aren't.

And they tend to idle...alot.

We need to deregulate mass transit

Name one nation on Earth that has an effective, deregulated, country-wide mass transit system.

by Tasermons Partner at 12:50 PM on 30 May 2008

Zipcars

In fact, Peru, Argentina, and several other South American countries have effective, private systems in place...that is, if you don't mind traveling at break-neck speeds on one-lane dirt roads and hurtling over 60-foot Andean cliffs to your untimely demise.

A system of community-use carbon-neutral cars may be a better idea than smart-taxis described in a previous post. The flex-car and 'zipcar' (zipcar.com) system used in Seattle and around the country may be a clever step away from the individual-ownership model. Admittedly, it perpetuates the sprawl model of development, but if all the cars are plug-in electrics, I'd argue we're in a better place.

by guade00 at 1:44 PM on 30 May 2008

cabs, rentals, shares, pooling, home delivery

that's all good.

covering peak traffic with SOVs, though, is insane; comparing taxis with light rail is downright intellectually despicable. electrified bus-transit is more practical than light rail and so's full rail, depending on the job.

maybe a middle ground would be purpose-built way-green supertaxis! taxibuses! jitneys! dunno. anyway. routed 'lectronically, door-to-door like airport vans, to get people where they want more directly, with just a couple stops. fewer drivers, less equipment to manage, lower VMT and energy requirements, special traffic privileges (because granting them'd be less disruptive).

by hapa at 1:47 PM on 30 May 2008

passion for public transit

What passionate discussions on public transit.
Let's nationalize oil companies and use those whopping profits to wean ourselves off car culture. It's taken sixty years to get to urban sprawl, long commutes to work, etc and now the system is no longer sustainable or affordable. Government built the infrastructure for the car. They should totally build mass transit and I gladly would pay taxes to support that.
Exciting times we live in.

by earlysnows at 5:50 AM on 01 Jun 2008

The comments of Grist users reflect the opinions of those individuals only, and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoints of Grist, its staff, its board members, their psychotherapists, or their aestheticians. Got it?