Transit ridership reached new heights in 2008, says the American Public Transportation Association. Naturally, APTA sees this as a reason for increased subsidies to transit.
Over the past five years, APTA’s numbers show that transit ridership has grown by 2.51 percent per year. Meanwhile, according to the Federal Highway Administration, urban driving has grown at only 1.34 percent per year — and actually declined in 2008.
The website includes a variety of resources proven to be effective for children with Asperger’s, ADHD, and generic cheap cialis other sensory integration related dysfunction. With this article, we are covering some of free cialis sample the conditions that could affect erection include obesity, cardiovascular leakage and diabetes. So How can I be Tall? If you are below thirty years you can grow few more inches taller. because of other factors most of people cialis generika who have no ED problem. Even a slight delay in taking a decision might mar the prescription du viagra prospects and chances to a great deal. APTA counts transit trips, while the FHwA counts vehicle miles. Presuming 1.6 occupants per auto and 5 miles per transit trip, transit carried about 53 billion passenger miles while autos carried 3.1 trillion passenger miles in urban areas. That means transit has 1.7 percent of the urban travel market (not counting bicycles and walking).
If transit continues to grow at the breakneck pace it has experienced in the past five years, while driving continues its anemic growth (both very big ifs), then transit will carry 2.0 percent of urban travel in just 13 years. In 50 years, it will reach 3 percent, 4 percent in a mere 76 years, and 5 percent in 96 years.
Maybe in 162 years, transit will actually carry enough people — 10 percent — to be considered a worthy competitor to autos and driving. Until then, APTA’s mantra of “throw more money at us” should not be taken seriously.
I’d be curious to see how much longer this growth in ridership for transit can continue.
Do you think the growth is sustainable?
If transit continues to grow at the breakneck pace it has experienced in the past five years, while driving continues its anemic growth (both very big ifs), then transit will carry 2.0 percent of urban travel in just 13 years. In 50 years, it will reach 3 percent, 4 percent in a mere 76 years, and 5 percent in 96 years.
‘Both very big ifs’ being a wish in the closed mind of ideologues, apparently, as no reason was given for the ‘if’.
Nonetheless, what if the growth continues at the rate since gas went to US$3.00/gal? Anyone? Why wasn’t this mentioned?
What might these figures be? What sort of demand indicator might this be (note I didn’t ask ‘would this change the minds of ideologues’)?
DS
What if we discover more oil or drill in Alaska? What if we don’t add a cap and trade tax.
DS why didn’t you address that?
Oil is a global commodity. Just because its drilled in the US, does not mean it stays in the US. People keep talking about domestic oil production, which can increase global supply, but not by much.
ANWR could produce at its peak 1 million barrels of oil a day (for 30 or something years). The US consumes 20+ million barrels a day of oil (the world consumes 85 million total barrels – so the consumes almost 1/4 all the oil but only constitutes 5% of the world’s total population). Combined with up and coming countries such as India and China, who are trying to consume as much as the individual US citizen – and have far larger populations; the concept that oil is going to be abundant and cheap is highly misguided.
This whole issue in the summer had everything to do with supply and demand. Sure, new areas of oil will be found, but what are the capital costs and investments needed to extract the hard to get oil? Probably a lot, and they just get passed off to the consumer. It’s also going to be tougher for energy companies to get the money for infrastructure improvements now, especially that their is highly reduced demand and smaller profits that are coming in.
From what I know, they have potential for developing oil rigs off some parts off the US coast. Are they doing it right now to help decrease future demand? I’m guessing not.
DS why didn’t you address that?
Craig, because the point I was making didn’t depend on cherry-picking numbers to mislead.
Nonetheless, the IEA doesn’t think that the small fraction of daily use in ANWR will increase much, and regardless has finally publicly admitted that peak oil is within sight – perhaps just over a decade away. So the price-driven shift can be expected to continue to change habits.
DS
What happens if we move to nuclear power and most of us all drive electric cars.
Would transit grow?
Randal’s argument was POV’s anemic growth wrt a cherry-picked starting point for transit.
Still, your wish for a lack of choice for people is admirable, even in the face of an aging demographic.
One can easliy make projections wrt growth and mode – the point is to use numbers that make sense, not numbers that make a marginal ideology feel good about itself.
DS
Come on DS, you don’t want choice, you want government subsidized transit because people choose to drive.
From what I know, they have potential for developing oil rigs off some parts off the US coast. Are they doing it right now to help decrease future demand? I’m guessing not.
WS
Why would anyone try to drill in the US, if they can be stopped before they get started by the politicians, after spending millions to develop an area.
Come on DS, you don’t want choice, you want government subsidized transit because people choose to drive
I want you to not make sh*t up. Is there bailout money for that?
DS
And what if peak oil is a myth? What if petroleum is abiogenic? What if Dan found a new hobby?
craig:“Why would anyone try to drill in the US, if they can be stopped before they get started by the politicians, after spending millions to develop an area.”
ws: The oil companies have millions of acres, on and off-shore, for drilling opportunities. There are 68 million acres of land available to the oil companies for leasing – yet they’re not using them. Most of the leasable land available has oil available according to some reports:
http://courtney.house.gov/UploadedFiles/Natural%20Resources%20energy%20report.pdf
The point I was trying to make is that oil exploration and drilling is about certain economic conditions being met. $100 a barrel oil is very enticing off-shore drilling, $45 not so much.
Why don’t you hear oil companies pushing for more off-shore drilling right now? Enlighten me. They’re not dumb, they play politics (and business) with the best of them.
I want you to not make sh*t up. Is there bailout money for that?
DS
Why is DS so angry?
ws: The oil companies have millions of acres, on and off-shore, for drilling opportunities.
WS
Maybe the oil is not there or there are better fields that they can’t drill in . Or the environmentalists have made it too expensive or the new administration is planning on adding too many new taxes.
Or they want to just drill where, the oil is.
POV?
craig: “Or they want to just drill where, the oil is.”
ws: You mean drill where the easy-to-get oil is. There’s no reason for them, even though they have the possibility to get permits, to drill in difficult places setting up infrastructure in the middle of the ocean. Once oil prices go up, they’ll be complaining about not having the ability to drill when they actually have/had ample opportunities.
I surmise they made a huge spectacle this summer (against the Democrats) for political reasons, possibly for huge tax cuts they would supposedly get from McCain. They knew they weren’t going to develop any further oil extracting infrastructure until their easier reserves were tapped. Obviously this is one big speculation by me, and you can draw any conclusion you want, but the fact remains they have permitting possibilities on millions of acres (right now at this exact moment in time) and a lot of land right now and are not using it.
Once the oil prices go up again, we’ll be at this same argument again. “Ya see the Democrats are blocking the oil companies from domestic drilling. It’ll take 10 years to even get oil flowing there! The Dems are to blame for high oil prices..blah blah blah“
PResently gas is about NZ$7/gallon and average household income is about $40,000 a year.
So we are paying much more per gallon that the US.
We have made some adjustments to these high prices such as smaller cars on average and more careful trip planning and there has been some shift to transit when gas was $10/12 a gallon at the peak.
But the vast majority of trips are in private vehicles and our cities are similar to those in the US but I suspect our average trip length is lower.
So expect some minor adjustments but I suspect an examination of other New World societies will demonstrate that there will be no Kunstler Katastrophes or total reorganisation of society.
ws
Why drill for hard to get oil when there is easier oil to drill for?
Of course the Democrats got blamed last year, they were the ones that were blocking the easy drilling.
Dan, you continue to make no points, miss point & make ignorant statements:
What does “if” transit use increases have to do with closed minds?
You wondered about transit increases during the time of gas increases.
That’s what this about, in 2008.
There was no cherry picking as you claim.
What do you think was? You lefty empty minded liberals seem to like to use of that word often, thinking that it automatically counters a point.
Choice? For almost 60 years, people have made choices against transit. There is plenty of transit, people choose not to use, including not living near routes.
You say “numbers that make sense.”
That sounds like you want to “massage data” using stats only favorable to certain points.
Dan, when you type nonsense, it is hard to see sense.
You claim somebody is making $hit up. That’s a standard attempt at defense for you.
It does not work. You are not referring to anything & have no solid basis for your claim.
Soon, people will really hate transit, when cheap alternatives to gasoline engines for cars are developed.
Did anybody get the point of Randal? Transit use barely increased, despite gas increase & the economy. Europe has gas over double the price here, worse roads & their car use is still pretty high, apprx 80%, rather than 90%.
Here’s an article titled “Transit Captures Little of Driving Decline” http://www.newgeography.com/content/00657-transit-captures-little-driving-decline.
The whole web site, New Geography is interesting: on this http://www.newgeography.com/
Dan, you continue to make no points, miss point & make ignorant statements:
Scott, IME weak people make these arguments.
It is clear you got nothin’ and do not have the cognitive capacity to play. Go away lad and find some gamers to cackle with as you pway a widdle gamie-game.
[ignore]
DS
craig: “Of course the Democrats got blamed last year, they were the ones that were blocking the easy drilling.”
ws: What? Define “easy drilling”. I just showed a report showing that most of the extractable oil is within the 68 million acres of leasable land.
Dan, it really is a mystery why you continue to type, but have nothing to contribute.
You even admit that you are weak in trying to make arguments.
You lose again, by default, just like a goalie sitting still on the ground.
Scott: You lose again, by default, just like a goalie sitting still on the ground.
You’re defending your welfare, just as I’m defending my turf.
Don’t tread on me & I won’t have to tread on you.
Scott, Within several decades people will really hate transit, when cheap alternatives to gasoline engines for cars are developed.
In the meantime we will have to make do with the sort of gasoline engine improvements that have got the oil industry worried. Ecoboost, stop/start, mild-hybrids and fancy new transmissions. PHEVs, hydrogen and battery electric might be in a beta-VHS style battle for supremacy in a few decades from now but it’s the incremental fuel economy advances available from retrofittable gasoline engine improvements that is stopping the oil companies from drilling.