Public transportation is habit-forming — and that’s a problem!

[M II A II R II K]

Public transportation is habit-forming — and that’s a problem!


05/18/2012

By Brad Plumer

Read More: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...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.

.....

 

[W. K. Lis]

The pre-WWII suburbs, or those built up from 1900 to 1950, were created with public transit (streetcars) or walking in mind. During the 1950's and up to now, it was with the automobile in mind. Pre-1950 suburbs, like Leaside, Mimico, Weston, etc. had stores within walking distance of homes. After 1950, stores were built with parking included since it was thought that everyone would drive, and they did. Zoning became more strict, no convenience stores in residential areas for example and low-density single-family homes only. That made public transit very expensive to operate in such an environment, resulting in either infrequent service or limited weekday service only.

During the boom years after 1950, the suburbs were now home to new families. This resulted in the children having to be chauffeured everywhere by either their parents or guardian. The venues or destinations were far apart, usually with their own parking lots.

Now the children have grown up, and may now have to chauffeur their own children. The grandparents, however, have to keep on driving because of their location. Except that now the grandparents face age restrictions on their own driving licenses. They now have to rely on public transit more and more, or having their own children chauffeur the grandparents this time.

With the chauffeur requests coming from children or grandparents, public transit is becoming more of an alternative for everyone.

 

[doady]

More transit use doesn't reduce the revenue of transit system, even if they get gas tax funding. More transit riders means more fare revenue, higher efficiency, cost recovery. It costs less to provide a bus service that's overcrowded than a bus service no one uses. If governments decide to cut funding to transit, that's a whole other issue.

 

[Chuck]

More transit use doesn't reduce the revenue of transit system, even if they get gas tax funding. More transit riders means more fare revenue, higher efficiency, cost recovery. It costs less to provide a bus service that's overcrowded than a bus service no one uses. If governments decide to cut funding to transit, that's a whole other issue.

Not sure about that. A full bus generates a certain amount of fare revnue, but also has an operating cost which will almost always be higher than the fare revenue. As ridership grows, you simply have more and more buses (or streetcars, trains, and so on) operating at a loss. You are correct in that the effiiency will most definitely rise, but so too will the overall operating loss. Public transit systems are not profitable, therefore bigger transit systems are always more expensive to operate. That's why although the TTC's fare subsidy per passenger is lower than YRT's, the TTC still requires vastly more government funding each year.

 

[RC8]

Not sure about that. A full bus generates a certain amount of fare revnue, but also has an operating cost which will almost always be higher than the fare revenue. As ridership grows, you simply have more and more buses (or streetcars, trains, and so on) operating at a loss. You are correct in that the effiiency will most definitely rise, but so too will the overall operating loss. Public transit systems are not profitable, therefore bigger transit systems are always more expensive to operate. That's why although the TTC's fare subsidy per passenger is lower than YRT's, the TTC still requires vastly more government funding each year.

Isn't that simply because the TTC moves MANY MANY MANY more people over a much larger area? Subsidy-per-passenger is the only stat that matters. If that goes down in bigger systems then more riders is better.

 

[Paolo]

Sometimes u cant just ask a politian to fix it. he has no idea what really needs to be fixed right now the go train is a joke. i have a go train station right next to my work, but i dont work 9-5, i have varying hours just like everyone in my office, go train does not cater to us, we are left in the dark.

 

[Amy Rose]

Not sure about that. A full bus generates a certain amount of fare revnue, but also has an operating cost which will almost always be higher than the fare revenue. As ridership grows, you simply have more and more buses (or streetcars, trains, and so on) operating at a loss. You are correct in that the effiiency will most definitely rise, but so too will the overall operating loss. Public transit systems are not profitable, therefore bigger transit systems are always more expensive to operate. That's why although the TTC's fare subsidy per passenger is lower than YRT's, the TTC still requires vastly more government funding each year.

The TTC was profitable enough to expand streetcar lines and even build the Yonge line (Union-Eglinton) without any government help that I know of, and its last recorded profit was around 1970 before the TTC had to remove zone fares

 

[W. K. Lis]

The TTC was profitable enough to expand streetcar lines and even build the Yonge line (Union-Eglinton) without any government help that I know of, and its last recorded profit was around 1970 before the TTC had to remove zone fares

If the transit vehicle (bus or streetcar) has to stop at each and every stop to pickup or discharge passengers, it is a sign (at least to me) of a more profitable transit line. If it skips stops or more likely many stops, that line is not profitable.

The old city is more likely to have such situations. The outer suburbs including the 905 is more likely to have many stops skipped.

 

[mpd618]

Public transit systems are not profitable, therefore bigger transit systems are always more expensive to operate.

And the assumption is valid because...? You've got to place some boundary conditions on that statement, because that's not a universal fact.

When you have a full bus operating on a street where people get on and off at stops along the way, it's not that hard to get enough revenue to cover the roughly $100-120/hour that a bus costs to operate. The problem for farebox recovery is that with North American cities in their current form, and with the coverage goals cities set for transit, most of the buses are not anywhere near full most of the time.

 

[doady]

Not sure about that. A full bus generates a certain amount of fare revnue, but also has an operating cost which will almost always be higher than the fare revenue. As ridership grows, you simply have more and more buses (or streetcars, trains, and so on) operating at a loss. You are correct in that the effiiency will most definitely rise, but so too will the overall operating loss. Public transit systems are not profitable, therefore bigger transit systems are always more expensive to operate. That's why although the TTC's fare subsidy per passenger is lower than YRT's, the TTC still requires vastly more government funding each year.

The point was about service levels. With equal service, increasing ridership would mean a budget surplus, not shortfall. Higher ridership also enable higher service levels, even if the subsidy remains the same. The TTC might cost more to operate than YRT, but the level of service is vastly higher. TTC cost recovery has declined in recent years (from 80% to less than 70%) and operating subsidy required has increased significantly, but that has been due to a concerted effort to improve ridership, not the other way around. Higher ridership by itself doesn't mean less service or higher costs.

Transit doesn't exist in a vacuum either. TTC costs Toronto money to operate and maintain, but so do roads. Arterial roads in 416 only 4 lanes wide, while the 905 roads are 6 lanes wide, thanks to the lack of transit. 6 lane roads are more expensive to maintain and operate than 4 lanes. Is transit more cost-effective, or roads?

As for your claim that a bus can never be profitable no matter what, that is just plain wrong.

 

[Dan416]

The TTC was profitable enough to expand streetcar lines and even build the Yonge line (Union-Eglinton) without any government help that I know of, and its last recorded profit was around 1970 before the TTC had to remove zone fares

I thought Toronto had a referendum to fund the Yonge line?

 

[Amy Rose]

I thought Toronto had a referendum to fund the Yonge line?

Well, the referendum fell through between the feds and the province, but Toronto did help fund the Yonge subway at the cost of not being able to build the Queen subway according to this article from Transit Toronto: http://transit.toronto.on.ca/subway/5102.shtml

 

[W. K. Lis]

At the May 30th TTC board meeting, a report will be presented on "ADDITIONAL OPERATING RESOURCE REQUIREMENTS TO MEET INCREASING TTC RIDERSHIP". You can download the PDF from this link.

The recommendations include:

RECOMMENDATIONS

It is recommended that the Commission:

1. Request Council to approve an increase of $2.1 million in the TTC’s 2012 operating expenditures to allow service to be improved, starting in September/October, 2012, from a level designed to carry 503 million annual passengers to a level appropriate for the currently-projected 512 million passengers which the TTC will carry in 2012;
2. Note that this change in operating costs will not affect the City’s 2012 subsidy to the TTC because higher-than-forecast TTC ridership is expected to generate $9 million more in fare revenue than budgeted, and this increase in revenue will more than offset the required increase in operating expenses;
3. Advise Council that the TTC’s current rate of ridership growth -- which is well above industry-wide trends -- is a continuation of the sustained increase in transit ridership in Toronto since 1996, which has resulted in TTC ridership increasing from 372 million riders in 1996 to a projected ridership of 512 million this year -- an increase of 38%.