Rail transit continued to do poorly in many American cities in 2005, at least judging from transit data recently released by the FTA. The FTA publishes data in two different forms. The first has data in rather cryptic files that are easy to manipulate as spreadsheets. The second has almost identical data that are easier to read but harder to work on.
To simplify matters for you, I took the data I think are most important and put them in one downloadable spreadsheet. This file includes, for every transit agency and every mode of transit they operate: operating costs; capital costs; fares; trips; passenger miles; vehicle revenue miles; and vehicle revenue hours. The file also tells what urbanized area the agency operates in.
At the end of the file, I have listed trips and passenger miles by major mode (bus, trolley bus, light rail, heavy rail, and commuter rail) for each of 99 urban areas (I listed 100, but Ogden data are combined with Salt Lake City). This part of the file also gives the daily vehicle miles traveled in that urban area based on table HM72 from the 2005 highway statistics. Based on this, the spreadsheet calculates transit’s and rail transit’s share of motorized passenger travel in each urban area.
I have also updated my rail transit spreadsheet to include 2005 data. This spreadsheet includes ridership data by mode going back to 1982 for each urban area that had rail transit in 2003. So far I have not yet added Minneapolis or Houston, both of which opened light-rail lines in 2004, to the spreadsheet.
Teitelbaum, the Deputy viagra cialis online Assistant Secretary, went over the initiatives of the United States to assist Kenya with developing “strong intuitions, not individuals”.The Director of the original Fullmetal Alchemist, Seiji Mizushima, had to provide you with an explanation totally different from the original brand. Lots of kinds of research study cialis sale this link have shown that Tramadol provides immediate relief in 100% of severe refractory depression cases. This is released in 5 mg, 10 mg and 20 mg yellow cheap levitra uk almond-shaped tablets. The main ingredient found in the medicine is made with the same ingredient of cialis uk with maintaining the quality and the power of it. I am going to make just a few comments here and then write in more detail about these data in future posts. Despite all the hype about rails, rail transit has a pathetic share of travel in every U.S. urban area, with the possible exception of New York. In New York, transit carries 9.7 percent of motorized passenger travel, most of which is rail transit, 7.4 percent of the total.
After New York comes San Francisco-Oakland (transit 5.1%, rail 3.5%); Washington DC (transit 4.1%, rail 2.9%), Chicago (transit 3.7%, rail 2.7%), and Boston (transit 3.1%, rail 2.5%). To boost transit — or, perhaps more accurately, slow the transit’s decline — to these almost insignificant levels, these regions have invested tens of billions of dollars.
For regions that have invested only billions of dollars, transit is almost completely inconsequential. Portland transit is 2.2% (rail 0.9%), L.A. 1.8% (rail 0.5%), Denver 1.4% (rail 0.2%), Salt Lake 1.1% (rail 0.4%), Dallas 0.7% (rail 0.2%). Transit ridership (but not market share) is at least growing in these urban areas. In regions such as St. Louis (0.8%/0.3%), Baltimore (1.4%/0.3%), and San Jose (0.9%/0.3%), transit use is on the decline despite (and in at least some cases, because of) investments in rail transit.
Yet transit, especially rail transit, remains highly visible on the landscape — just try cycling around all those big buses and across slippery rails — and in our pocketbooks. Many of these cities are spending well over half of their transportation capital budgets on transit systems that the most optimistic projections say will eventually carry no more than 3 or 4 percent of passenger travel. Meanwhile, our cities get more and more congested each year.
Transit can play an important role in providing mobility to people who can’t drive and even to some who don’t want to drive. But for it to do so, transit agencies have to spend their funds as effectively as possible. Dropping billions on expensive rail lines is not getting people out of their cars and in some cities it has actually harmed transit-dependent riders. In future posts I will do a region-by-region analysis of the 2005 data, discuss some of the myths spread by rail advocates, and describe the flaws in the transportation planning process that have led to this sad misplacement of priorities.
Do these data, Randal, show any increase in ridership when gas prices went over 3.00/gal, reflecting a change in utility?
DS
Dan,
APTA’s month-to-month ridership numbers do show an increase in ridership with increasing gas prices. This increase does not have much of an effect on 2005 annual data. In previous times of high gas prices, Americans responded by boosting transit ridership, but ridership declined when prices went down. I may review APTA’s data in a future post to see just how significant the response to high fuel prices is.
Yes.
My point being that when gas prices rise above whatever marginal utility level agents assign, transit ridership will increase, in addition to driving habits changing (carpooling increases, trip chaining, decreasing nonwork trips).
I doubt the live-work gap will decrease, however, as agents’ multifactorial calculations generally privilege schools and land rents over commute costs.
DS
Dan, in the short run you are probably right but you are planning for the long term. If gas prices stay high for a long period of time, substitute fuels or more fuel efficient cars are far more likely to be used than will peoples propensity to use transit increase. Transit ridership may go up in the short run or even go up slightly in the long run but there is no way that there will be a sustained increase unless people’s incomes drop substantially and/or the government intervenes sharply.
If gas prices stay high for a long period of time, substitute fuels or more fuel efficient cars are far more likely to be used than will peoples propensity to use transit increase.
Caloric density in fossil fuels is higher than anything else that we know. I like the idea of cellulosic ethanol to close the waste loop, but not at the expense of food, as we’ll likely have ~3B more people to feed by
if present trends continue. That leaves a shrinking supply of land for biofuels to replace oil. Surely IO agree with Amory Lovins that we can radically improve efficiency and I’m all for it.
Transit ridership may go up in the short run or even go up slightly in the long run but there is no way that there will be a sustained increase unless people’s incomes drop substantially and/or the government intervenes
sharply
Or spending power decreases. Or redevelopment occurs to decrease the size of homes to make more efficient (or hopefully new material to make homes more energy-efficient – LED lights good example, cellulose insulation another, ICF another. Point being there is more to this than an either-or exercise, and scenario analysis informs us for the future.
DS
Just because you don’t know what that fuel is that will replace oil does not mean it does not exist. That is the beauty of the free market. The profit motive produces all kinds of things that almost no one can imagine. The market will find a way to give people what they want and most want large houses, private cars and minimal traffic.
The market will find a way to give people what they want and most want large houses, private cars and minimal traffic.
First, there is no – and has never been – a free market, but I appreciate the theory that in some place human nature is overcome by rational agents maximizing utility.
Next, gentrification and infill developments in core areas where agents seek amenities and transit in, say, Atlanta reveal that your assertions are not always true – that is: the population is not homogeneous to your beliefs.
Many folks get tired of heating and cleaning a big, empty house as well as the yard work. The folks in my last town, in fact, were explicit that I lay out the new development to provision for a certain percentage of smaller lots and smaller houses to capture that market segment.
The profit motive produces all kinds of things that almost no one can imagine.
But it doesn’t break the laws of physics on a finite sphere, assertions of some cornucopians notwithstanding.
DS
Dan, I know you are used to dealing with academics and professionals but the term “agents” is not commonly used by most folks and weakens your arguments somewhat.
The market will find a way to give people what they want and most want large houses, private cars and minimal traffic.
First, there is no – and has never been – a free market, but I appreciate the theory that in some place human nature is overcome by rational agents maximizing utility.
Dan, I know you are used to dealing with academics and professionals but the term “agents” is not commonly used by most folks and weakens your arguments somewhat. Perhaps I should have said “freer†(is that a word?) market.
Next, gentrification and infill developments in core areas where agents seek amenities and transit in, say, Atlanta reveal that your assertions are not always true – that is: the population is not homogeneous to your beliefs.
Oh, I agree fully here. I, myself, would not dream of living outside the central core. 25-30 blocks from the Willamette or Burnside is my outside limit.
Many folks get tired of heating and cleaning a big, empty house as well as the yard work. The folks in my last town, in fact, were explicit that I lay out the new development to provision for a certain percentage of smaller lots and smaller houses to capture that market segment.
The profit motive produces all kinds of things that almost no one can imagine.
But it doesn’t break the laws of physics on a finite sphere, assertions of some cornucopians notwithstanding.
The problem with the “folks†being explicit is that they are not always “explicit†with the cash. There is an old saying in Real Estate “buyers are liers†and that goes for all the do gooders that come to meeting and tell developers or planners what to build. They almost never put up the cash to buy. I remember a great little restaurant called Machesmo Mouse that kept changing things based on a few “folks†that were “explicit†in their suggestions on ways to operate the business better. Now they are no more.
The market will find a way to give people what they want and most want large houses, private cars and minimal traffic.
That is simply because externalities are not included in the price signal.
And I don’t know what your last paragraph means. If it means don’t rely solely on public input, of course. If it means developers want the smallest parcel available to build on to maximize profit, of course. Otherwise, I can;t tell what you mean.
DS
On January 22nd, 2007, Dan said:
“externalities are not included in the price signal.”
Now that I agree with…