PDA

View Full Version : Public transportation is habit-forming — and that’s a problem!


M II A II R II K
May 21, 2012, 2:58 PM
Public transportation is habit-forming — and that’s a problem!


05/18/2012

By Brad Plumer

Read More: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/is-public-transportation-habit-forming/2012/05/18/gIQAFw1WYU_blog.html

When gas prices rise, more people start taking the bus, train, or subway. Not everyone can do this — only about 54 percent of U.S. households have access to public transit, after all — but economists have found that the relationship is quite robust. But what happens when gas prices start sinking back down — something that’s happening right now? Evidence suggests that many of those riders will keep taking transit anyway. One 2011 study of New York City, for instance, found that transit ridership “seems to respond to rises in gasoline prices, but not to falls.” A 2009 study in Philadelphia found a similar phenomenon.

- “This sustained growth,” the authors of the latter study note, “could be evidence that once prices compel people to form new transit habits, some find a reason to keep them.” This research is all discussed in a new policy brief by the American Public Transportation Association, which notes that the United States appears to have entered a new era of oil volatility. And that means that demand for public transportation is likely to keep surging. If gas prices spike, more people will try to ride the bus or train to work. If gas prices then settle down again, many of those people will stick with transit. Why does this matter? Because, APTA argues, public transportation systems are expected to add some 200 million new trips this year “even as gas prices fluctuate by as much as 50 cents per gallon.” On the bright side, that means fewer emissions and congestion on the road. But on the downside, most transit systems are poorly equipped to deal with this surge.

- We’ve seen plenty of evidence of that already in cities like Pittsburgh. Ridership on trains and buses keeps swelling, even though many agencies have had to make cuts because of budget shortfalls. APTA estimates that 71 percent of transit agencies around the country have either cut services in the past year or are currently considering it. Some 39 percent of transit agencies had reported that “overcrowded conditions were such that they were turning away passengers.” So is there a good policy solution here? Transit advocates tend to say more money is the answer. One problem, though, is in the peculiar way that the federal government provides money. Transit is funded through a dedicated fraction of the gas tax. And that can create havoc: Whenver oil volatility pushes people away from driving and toward transit, that means there’s less gas-tax revenue available.

.....




http://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_296w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2011/09/26/Local/Images/metro9.jpg?uuid=HjS6QOiXEeCKBcEOwQfcZg

vid
May 21, 2012, 3:12 PM
It saves money. Transit might take 2 or 3 times as long, but when the cost is little more than one fifth of using a car on a regular basis, you come out ahead, especially if you plan well or the transit is frequent.

M II A II R II K
May 21, 2012, 3:22 PM
And with no delays at play, transit doesn't slow down during rush hour in fact quite the contrary with increased frequencies. There should be better integration and ease of charging for it with park and ride commuter rail lines. Cut down on congestion and not enough parking downtown too.

Swede
May 21, 2012, 6:25 PM
Took me a while how it could be a problem. Then I read the gas tax bit. Solution: a different funding model. Tied to property taxes maybe? Better transit leads to higher property values, after all.

zilfondel
May 22, 2012, 8:15 PM
Our system in Portland is based on payroll tax and property taxes I believe? Not exactly sure, but the funding ups/downs typically happen on a much longer economic cycle than in California and Washington, which use sales taxes.

mhays
May 22, 2012, 8:50 PM
In Washington state, systems have lived vs. shriveled depending on whether the local voters and electeds approved new funding. King County (1.9 mil, including Seattle) has done so. Pierce County (Tacoma) and Snohomish County (Everett) haven't.

240glt
May 22, 2012, 9:00 PM
I have four options to get to & from work: My car, LRT, bike or walk.

Costs break down as follows:

Car... just gas & parking is probably $15/ day
LRT: $4.60 round trip
Bike/ Walk: free

For me, time is far more important, and that breaks down like this:

Car: 20 mins
LRT: 15 minutes (including the walk to the station, then to the office on the other end)
walk: 30 minutes door to door
bike: 9 minutes door to door


It's unlikely I'd ever drive (still haven't after 2.5 years working downtown), as the gas prices really don't afect me but the parking does.... LRT is just faster and more convenient. Biking is awesome but our weather limits that option to maybe 1/2 the year.

We're looking for a new house, probably a bit farther from the core and across the river, but two of the criteria (asside for finished basement and 2 car garage off a back alley) is an easy commute via transit and bike. Transit is indeed habit forming, but I'd say it's a good thing

vid
May 22, 2012, 10:08 PM
Took me a while how it could be a problem. Then I read the gas tax bit. Solution: a different funding model. Tied to property taxes maybe? Better transit leads to higher property values, after all.

In Ontario, transit systems generally use this funding formula:

40% to 60% fare recovery (less in small cities, more in larger ones)
60% to 40% municipal funds from property taxes
An annual bonus from the provincial gas tax for the transit system to spend on encouraging greater transit use

Capital costs for vehicles are funded primarily by the province, while capital costs for major infrastructure work is funded by any combination of the levels of government and the private sector depending on the size and scope of the project. (A small bus terminal would be covered by just the city; an LRT line would be a local/provincial partnership.)

The total absence of federal funding and low levels of provincial funding, along with local laws that often require transit to recover at least 40% of its budget from fares, are the primary reason that public transit fares in Canada are so much higher than they are in the US. Our transit systems are actually less subsidized by the government than theirs.