The transit surge is working

Despite increased ridership, we need more funding as well as support for our trains

Posted by Jon Rynn (Guest Contributor) at 5:21 PM on 12 May 2008

Read more about: public transportation | oil | energy | placemaking

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.

For story: The transit surge is working
6 Comments | Post a Comment

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

by green8659 at 10:40 PM on 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.

... streetcars cost three to six times as much to build as electric trolley buses. Both are powered by electric wires, but fixed rails must be built and maintained for streetcars, while rubber-tired trolley buses run on street pavement without tracks. According to the city estimate, electric trolley construction and facilities such as power lines would cost $7 million to $8 million per mile for systems lasting 30 years. The city estimate compared that to $30 million to $45 million per mile for streetcar systems that last 40 years (one proposed line would cost more than $50 million per mile). Light rail trains, by comparison, cost between $100 million and $160 million per mile and can last more than 60 years

by Colin Wright at 11:03 PM on 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

by The Overhead Wire at 1:14 AM on 13 May 2008
[ Parent ]

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(function(x)=Participation(x))

by jabailo at 6:20 AM on 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.

by Jon Rynn at 7:33 AM on 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

by PermieWriter at 12:18 PM on 13 May 2008

ADVERTISING POLICY

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