According to Transportation for America–which is largely a shill for the transit and high-speed rail industry–the nation about to face a new crisis: a shortage of mobility “options” for retiring baby boomers. According to a report published by the group on June 14, “By 2015, more than 15.5 million Americans 65 and older will live in communities where public transportation service is poor or non-existent.”
The appropriate answer to that, of course, is “So what?” Most seniors don’t ride transit. Census data show that more than 12.5 percent of all Americans are over 65, yet data from the American Public Transportation Association show that only 6.7 percent of transit trips are taken by senior citizens. The average American rides transit less than 34 times a year; the average senior citizen less than 18 times a year.
Putting that into perspective, the 2009 National Household Travel Survey says Americans over 65 take an average of 1,168 trips per year, nearly all by automobile. Transit serves only 1.5 percent of those trips. This survey of the travel habits of more than 300,000 people also found that senior citizens travel an average of 8,250 miles a year by car. Transit carries seniors an average of less than 100 miles a year, or about 1.1 percent of the total of transit and auto travel.
Despite this, Transportation for America joins the American Public Transportation Association in using the supposed needs of senior citizensto justify more transit subsidies. They say additional federal subsidies are needed to give seniors “options.”
Furthermore, those suffering from diabetes, high cholesterol or raised blood pressure or maybe diabetes. levitra 40 mg devensec.com Keep a stock of purchase generic cialis http://www.devensec.com/ch498/dec4989.html so that you can verify the quality of the product adaptation cialis that is the paramount cure after purchase generic cialis in the marketplace formulated for the treatment of impotence, especially if you’re after a long-term impact. Together we must eliminate toxic environments and in their friend and family circle. viagra prices Neem is household name in India when home remedies are quite cheap cheapest online viagra and can help in treating dry mouth naturally.
But think about it. Baby boomers have driven cars for almost their entire lives. Nearly all of them will keep driving until they are physically or mentally unable to do so. At that point, they are probably not going to be capable of walking the quarter mile to the nearest bus stop or the half mile to the nearest rail stop that Transportation for America defines as “transit accessible.”
Those baby boomers who prefer transit over driving can do what everyone else does who prefers one set of services over another: locate to where the services they prefer are the greatest. In the case of transit riders, that generally means dense central cities.
Instead, Transportation for America wants transit agencies to extend frequent bus or rail service to every remote suburb where there might be a few people over 65–not because those people want to ride transit but to give them “options.” In order to pay for service extensions to suburbs, many transit agencies have reduced transit service in the central cities most transit riders are actually located. As a result, since 1985 per capita transit ridership has plummeted in such major urban areas as Los Angeles, Chicago, and Atlanta.
Congress expects to pass legislation this year that will decide how to spend $40 billion in annual federal gas tax revenues over the next six years. In recent years, 20 percent of those gas taxes have been spent on transit. Transportation for America’s goal is to further increase that share. But after decades of huge transit subsidies, per capita transit ridership today is no greater than it was in 1970–mainly because the subsidies have focused on extending transit service to those who don’t need it rather than providing better service to those who do.
Americans will be better off by privatizing transit. Private operators will provide better service to those willing to live in denser, transit-friendly neighborhoods without wasting a lot of money trying to attract a few suburbanites out of their cars.
People are always saying that. But today you can have perscriptions delivered to you and other stuff. Besides it’s not rail or heavy transit that is of any real concern. It’s small box transit, essentially small buses and trucks and shuttles designed to carry multiple people. The Urban planners think that the retired are another niche of those that can’t drive, still they want to spend a lot of money building a rail system that largley doesn’t offer any real mobility. We’ve seen examples of retirement communities (golf cart communities) that allow seniors to ride or be driven anywhere they need to go. Seniors today have more mobility options today than their predecessors did just 50 years ago.
I like it: keep ’em in cars and when they are too old to drive, make them dependent someone else to drive them in the car. That’s a good business model.
DS
“Most seniors don’t ride transit.”
I’ve recently done a lot of transit work in rural TX. While most seniors in the study areas are independently mobile, 99% of the people that use the rural transit systems are seniors or people with disabilities (hence what Dan said). When interviewing one senior passenger re: transit service, she broke down in tears expressing her reliance on transit, stating that there would be no way she could continue to live a fulfilling life without the bus, and in all likelihood she might not even be alive (her primary use of the system was for medical purposes).
Many people drive their entire lives, but high concentrations of seniors is indicative of a specialized transit demand. It’s not about preference, it’s about need.
It is obvious that you have not ridden San Francisco Muni any time in the past. Muni has one of the highest senior citizen riderships anywhere. I know for a fact: I was a Muni operator for 26 years and nearly 50% of my ridership at most times of the day was by senior citizens.
So perhaps you might want to check your statistics again before you make such an outlandish statement?
Sincerely,
Peter Ehrlich
My father was able to drive, and be driven by family or friends, long after he was able or willing to use public transit. I have yet to meet a senior who gave up their car in order to walk to a transit stop and be exposed to, and jostled by, groups of people. The lack of private space and the lack of control over their surroundings seem like high barriers to transit use by seniors.
99% of the people that use the rural transit systems are seniors or people with disabilities
Which might be a good argument for what some now call “para-transit”. Supplying on-call vans might be a humane action for society to take. The people Randall’s writing about are looking for light-rail systems I suspect.
Craigh & jwetmore,
I should have mentioned that. In the study areas it was almost exclusively Demand-Response (Paratransit) service. Down here in TX you can’t have the elderly waiting in the summer heat at a bus stop. They call and get picked up. Door to door.
Specialized transit (Demand-response, medical and commuting services) is really the only thing that works in rural areas that don’t have the densities to support a fixed route system.
The Autoplanner; According to Transportation for America–which is largely a shill for the transit and high-speed rail industry…
THWM: Though O’Toole, you’re a shill for big oil & the auto industry.
Bennet: Specialized transit (Demand-response, medical and commuting services) is really the only thing that works in rural areas that don’t have the densities to support a fixed route system.
THWM: That’s also called “dial-a-ride” in some places.
I have to second jwetmore that for many seniors, transit is not an option. My parent could not ride the MAX due to her osteoporosis and risk of falling. Many seniors have access to private transport, such as those provided by retirement communities, churches, etc.
I agree with the importance of paratransit. I worked for a non-profit that focuses on small urban and rural transit systems, and transit options for senior citizens represented one of the largest focuses of the organization. In almost every circumstance, we were looking at small buses or vans to transport senior citizens in retirement communities/assisted living homes/apartment complexes between their homes and medical centers, grocery stores, etc. etc. And my work echoed a lot of what Bennett said: these are areas that do not have the density for a fixed-route system, but paratransit nevertheless played a critical role in the lives of the seniors and often represented their only viable form of getting around.
Randall, I’m willing to agree that these seniors represent markets that are not effectively served by rail systems or even by bus systems in many circumstances, but given that many senior citizens live on fixed incomes, I’m skeptical that any private entity would create a paratransit system to serve these markets. I don’t think the systems could survive without subsidies, which would be very difficult for the elderly or the communities in which they live to provide. I recognize that I’ve set up a market with several qualifications, but I think it represents a circumstance in which subsidies are necessary for people to maintain their mobility.
Frank says: “Many seniors have access to private transport, such as those provided by retirement communities, churches, etc.”
In the study I did, many of these nursing homes and retirement communities, despite the fact that they own a bus (sometimes paid for through FTA grants, i.e subsidized with tax payer $$$), use the public dial-a-ride service.
The discussion changed signifcantly from the beginning of the comments.
Paratransit is different than fixed route/fixed schedule systems. Debating subsidies for the disabled is a different discussion than promoting subsidies for some poorly defined user group in the name of choice. Consider the existance of natural monopolies as many utilities are considered (water, sanitary sewer, electric, etc.). Surface transportation might best be managed as a regulated natural monopoly that is local. Few people would assert that the piping system for natural gas should be dupilated so that consumers might enjoy a choice to use propane instead of natural gas.
I agree with this, yes there is a minority that will need pubic transit.
Still one thing you are missing, how they are hurting those who depend on mass transit by cutting bus services diverting funds to big transit project like light rail and street cars. Here in Portland, I finally had to lean to drive at 40 years old in 2000 due to the cuts downtown bus services to feed light rail. Because of unemployment last year, I only could afford gas for shot trips and used public transit to get to my church across town. Timet had cut bus runs in 2010 but still allocated money for more street cars and light rail projects. I bet Trimet can spend 75% less and provide more needed services by drooping big transit projects and buy more busses.
Though Tri-Met is saving money with light rail, when compared to operating buses. I see the need for improving transit service all over, but there is only so much money.