Any smart-growther enjoying a moment of schadenfreude over recent reports of a decline in driving have to recognize that transit ridership is also down. Moreover, the city of Portland, which likes to think of itself as the bicycle capital of the United States, reports that cycling is down as well.
The actual numbers are revealing. Portland estimates that cycling in 2009 was 5 percent less than in 2008. The American Public Transportation Association says that transit ridership in the first nine months of 2009 was 3.8 percent less than the same period in 2008. Meanwhile, driving the first nine months of 2009 is actually 0.2 percent greater than the same period in 2008.
If it is greater, then why the reports of a decline in driving? They are based on a rolling twelve-month average, and the twelve months ending in October, 2009 included the months immediately following the panic and crash of 2008. But thanks to lower fuel prices, 2009 beat 2008 in five of the first nine months of each year despite unemployment.
A doctor, along with needed medical instructions, can help one treating generic viagra from india erectile problems safely. The competition in the open market makes the drug cheap. cipla tadalafil 20mg may be found by the names of Kamagra, and Kamagra oral jelly will reduce the effect of this enzyme and help in making the blood flow normal to the penile chambers by widening relevant blood vessels, release nitric oxide and cGMP enzymes to counter PDE5 enzymes, thereby causing an erection. Early European explorers noted the indigenous uses and the aphrodisiac qualities of Muira Puama and generic viagra tab brought it back to the village. In women, it’s more viagra samples from doctor friction that is concern with the risks of bruising to the fork that can result. So transit ridership (and, probably, cycling) is more volatile than driving. In the case of transit, this is because transit is mainly used for commuting, while only about 20 percent of driving is commuting. Thus, a decline in jobs affects transit more than driving.
Transit also suffers more from economic downturns because it relies so much more on tax revenues that are likely to fall in a recession. For auto drivers, the highways are there regardless of economic conditions, and if maintenance is deferred a bit during a recession no one really notices. For transit, a drop in revenues means cuts in service. Rather than argue that this justifies more subsidies to transit, this should discourage communities from relying on transit where personal transportation will do.
Here is some good news: The 1.7 percent decline in auto travel in the first three months of 2009 (compared with 2008) contributed to a whopping 10 percent decline in accident fatalities (and a 9 percent decline in fatality rates). Driving in the second quarter of 2009 grew by 0.6 percent, and fatality rates fell by only 4 percent.
Highway fatality rates have been declining for decades, but this suggests that a slight decline in driving — or, probably, any programs that can relieve congestion — can produce huge gains in highway safety. If true, then transportation policies aimed at discouraging driving by increasing congestion carry with them a bloody hidden toll.
The Antiplanner wrote:
> Transit also suffers more from economic downturns because
> it relies so much more on tax revenues that are likely to
> fall in a recession. For auto drivers, the highways are
> there regardless of economic conditions, and if maintenance
> is deferred a bit during a recession no one really notices.
> For transit, a drop in revenues means cuts in service.
Randal, I agree with the above.
But I would state it a little differently (and perhaps more succinctly (I know, that is unusual for me)) by saying that most forms of transit in most of the U.S. are profoundly auto dependent, since the capital and operating subsidies for transit generally come from the taxes (and sometimes tolls) paid by highway users.
I’m always amazed at how two different groups can use the same data set and come up with opposite conclusions.
or, probably, any programs that can relieve congestion — can produce huge gains in highway safety. If true, then transportation policies aimed at discouraging driving by increasing congestion carry with them a bloody hidden toll.
The conclusion doesn’t follow from the premise. Shocking, surely, to regular readers.
And an admixture and conflation of local and national trends, purposely confusing scales. Huh.
DS
The Autoplanner: Roads are there regardless of economic conditions.
THWM: I agree, though why do you want railroads destroyed?
DS got a new Thesaurus for Christmas!
Highwayman:
“Why do you want railroads destroyed?”
Specifically to upset you, of course. In fact, the next time I see a set of train tracks, I’m going to spit on them. And kick them, maybe. Freakin’ tracks, they think they can do anything they want.
You libertards sure are sociopathic.
Someone forgot to close their sarc tag, leading to the naughty behavior. Give it a rest HM.
DS
Well they are, they don’t want a two way street.
They want things their way all the time.