Interesting Numbers
Posted by Fred Jandt
Editor, Mass Transit
I read an interesting article last week. It said, “despite soaring gas prices, close to 80 percent of motorists said they still prefer to commute by driving and will not consider taking advantage of public transportation.”
It went on to say that 22.5 percent of commuters are considering public transit — a 3.9 percent increase from two years ago. According to the story 24.3 percent of interviewees say they are too far away from stops and stations, 17 percent said it would take them longer to get to work and 14.9 percent said public transit wasn’t flexible enough for them.
Of course, half of the respondents say that if gas prices continue to climb, they will use their cars less. Of those interviewed, 32 percent said they need to search for parking spaces when they get to work and the average time lost doing this is about 7.5 minutes.
Those are some interesting numbers — especially when you consider that they are from a survey of 20,000 car owners in the Republic of China (Taiwan).
What’s interesting here is not just the similarity of the numbers to the United States, but the reasons against using transit. It’s too far away. It takes too long. I don’t want to give up the freedom of my car.
Heard any of those lately?
Now consider that in Taipei, Taiwan’s capital city, gasoline is currently going for about $2.84 a gallon (that’s in U.S. dollars). How about here in the states? I know it’s $2.84 at the gas station across the street from the Mass Transit offices. How about other places: Chicago - $2.85; New York - $2.74; Los Angeles - $3.13; Seattle - $3.01; Houston - $2.58.
So the gas prices there are about in-line with the U.S.
Now look at these gas prices (U.S. dollars): London - $5.79; Madrid - $4.55; Frankfurt - $5.57; Paris - $5.54.
It is interesting that four cities with arguably some of the best transit systems in the world also have gas prices $2 - $3 higher than in the U.S. or Taiwan where people still “love” their cars.
No wonder people are still in love with their cars — what’s the incentive to try anything else.
Thanks for reading the MT Position, updated every Friday.
October 26th, 2007 at 12:41 pm
What would happen to the great American love affair with the car if they arrived at work and there were not any parking spaces left? Lets use money for public transportation rather than for parking garages. The more inconvenient it becomes to drive to work the more people will accept mass transit.
October 26th, 2007 at 12:59 pm
It makes no sense to try to force people out of using their cars by adding exorbitant taxes on gas like Great Britain, Spain, Germany, and France do. This is a dictatorial approach that has no place in a free market economy such as the U.S.
Some of the countries cited have also experienced transit shutdowns due to labor strikes.
Furthermore, I don’t believe the mass transit systems in those countries are really competitive with the convenience and speed of driving your own car in the U.S. either.
If transportation options are graded “on the curve”, commuting by private auto gets a grade of “B plus”, however even the best mass transit will get a grade of just a “C minus”. The low grade for mass transit (among many other complaints) is that it is too slow and doesn’t go exactly where people want to go.
Also in a free market, the government should not be trying to provide a commodity or service that is more appropriately provided by the private sector. This was the failed strategy used in the former Soviet Union. With the exception of the street and highway infrastructure, the government should not be using taxation as a means of financing a “state run” transportation service.
October 26th, 2007 at 1:18 pm
Gas Rationing Stamps are in boxes now.
The Feds, back 30 years or so, made preparation for gas rationing, but when the situation eased, the coupons went into storage. Nice little tickets, with George W. #1’s picture. Maybe our Geo. W. will ask someone to bring some of these up to the Oval Office, as conversation pieces…
One can only shudder at the thought of what it will be like when the oil flow is impacted by military action in the Middle East oil lanes. Even the topic of Peaking Oil, a slow motion slowing of energy supply is too much for presidential wannabes and planners to come to grips with. Banks and entrepreneurs still capitalize projects that are near 100% dependent on unfettered oil flow and herds of automobiles that ride the petroleum wave!
T. Boone Pickens, a man to be reckoned with when the subject is oil, stated last week: Peaking Oil is now a fact; we are on the production plateau. When the depletion rate begins cutting into deliverable supply over the next few years, no known combination of substitutes, drilling or even conservation will prevent limits to growth. This will be reflected early on with a flurry of steps to attempt to maintain the status quo, gas rationing, even/odd days by license number for gasoline purchases, etc.
Eerily prescient writings by old warhorse James A. Van Fleet, in the 1956 Association of American Railroads booklet “RAIL TRANSPORT & THE WINNING OF WARS” will soon be dinner talk topics. Like, overdependence on foreign oil, need for alternative mobility sytems (besides cars), and, get this- ability to facilitate rapid recovery from natural disasters & homeland attack… In 1956, the General sez all this!
Woe be to us if we wait for “INCENTIVES!?” before we act.
The planners reading Fred Jandt’s column are certainly astute enough to understand these are extraordinary times, and the need to make a paradigm shift in transport methodology is at a crisis point. There are certain incremental steps that allow a somewhat graduated approach. That is, until the crisis in transportation fuel liquids is reality. One mentioned in other places is the inventory, prioritiztion and systematic de minimus rehab of railway branch corridor to enable victuals and essentials of life to keep moving into town when the trucking fleet is crippled by fuel allocation.
Re-tooling some auto manufacturing capacity for bus and electric streetcar production is another plain and simple step. The people who are on transit boards should be supplied by the manager class with Peaking Oil and emergency preparedness task outlines for their respective locales. All the State National Guard Commandants must be brought into alternative transport planning processes- this is for assuring the disaster recovery component. Obviously, Van Fleet’s book should be in everyone’s hands. APTA, can you contact AAR in D.C., get permission to reprint the booklet for distribution to ALL APTA members? Please.
Incentives to get people into public transportation may not be necessary, unfortunately.
October 29th, 2007 at 3:59 am
No one has mention our need to address our most serious problem we face today, which is the problem is Global Warming that is generated by the Greenhouse Gases that we produce. While the US comprises only 5% of the worlds population we produce 20% of the GHG. The major contributor is from vehicles use. In the SF Bay Region, the second most congested region in the country, studies show vehicles produce 50% of the total GHG. You probably read of the serious changes that is occurring over the years due to the emission of GHG that is affecting us i.e. drought, change in sea level, storms, extinction of flora and fauna to name a few, so I will not elaborate.
Therefore, we need to reduce emission of GHG by consuming less petroleum on driving or use less energy, which much is produced from coal. We also need to consider that the legislation considered and possibly being enacted will not accomplish the reduction of GHG that many States and Countries have set. It will definitely require us individually to consider making changes in how we live and travel.
We need drive less and use transit more, but as we all know it is difficult to use transit for usually it is not accessible and convenient. To accomplish this change over time, we will need to allocate more of our land developed to be transit oriented rather than auto oriented.
On the price of gas that Editor Fred Jandt mentioned of European countries, they differ by $2.50-3.00 per gallon from what we pay. This difference is taxes. Yet with higher fuel taxes these cities are experiencing congestion as bad or worse than our cities, so they are using much of the taxes to fund transit as an alternative. Due to congestion, transit is more heavily used, which reduces its operating subsidy far more than in America
Most large cities of world except in the US produces half or less GHG per capita since they have decent available transit. The transit was developed and paid in part from higher fees imposed on the use of autos. They also impose tolls not only on new major roads and bridges but to enter central city because this pricing not only reduces congestion but reduces emission of GHG which they appear to be more determined to do..
The irony of America is that we continually spend billions each year in an attempt to relieve congestion but consistently it keeps reoccurring in a few years. Also a growing shame is the funds we accrue for congestion relief is getting less from auto users but from general funds the public pays like; grants, bonds and sales tax. This is very inequitable, and senseless for we know we will have congestion and should consider spending the funds on alternatives such as on integrated planned Transit that serves Transit Oriented Development.
October 29th, 2007 at 10:54 am
“With the exception of the street and highway infrastructure, the government should not be using taxation as a means of financing a “state run” transportation service.”
Why do highways get a free pass here? Mass transit is another part of the transportation system and therefore should be place on a level playing field.
October 29th, 2007 at 11:22 am
If Transit Proffesionals seriously consider that we are “selling a product” to the public, and not asking the public to take it or leave it, I am sure we can offer the public a product they need (comfort, convenience, customer service, education and alternatives) and not something we feel like giving them.
October 29th, 2007 at 12:08 pm
I am going to over-generalize here, but public transit agencies, APTA and the industry overlook opportunities afforded by our present gas price-global warming-congestion-mobility crisis by narrowly defining public transportation (PT) to exclude or marginalize services that would benefit the great number of Americans who require mobility afforded by cars. I am refering to ride-shairng, car-sharing, taxis, other flexible services.
I propose that public transit be leaders in developing, promoting and investing in integrated community mobility (ICM), a network of mobility services that can be accessed by a majority of Americans. This strategy is based on the self-interest that the more relevant PT is for more people, the more popular support there will be for PT. I offer these examples:
Ride-Sharing. PT should sponsor ride-sharing web-sites and partner with web entrepreneurs to develop new services. PT should vigorously promote ride-sharing and co-brand the service. There are very creative services out there that need promotion. Ride-sharing is an vastly under-developed consumer market that has the potential to be the most widely dispersed PT service in the country.
Car-shairng. Car-sharing is growing in major cities and university towns. There are examples of close working partnerships with public transit agencies. But, car-sharing remains a under-developed service.
Taxis. PT should formally partner with the taxi industry to improve taxi services and the transit-taxi connections. Is there an overall taxi development strategy in a community? I submit PT should be working in partnership to develop a universal fare card that can be used for all mobility services. Further, there may be an opportunity for the public to invest in information/ communications infrastructure that can serve all providers inclusing taxis. These investments may be too large for an unorganized private market to make that would benefit them and also the public.
New Mobility Hub Networks. Bus stops, transfer stops, transportation centers, subway stations are PT infrastructure that can be used as hubs to organize inter & multi-modal services. Individual projects often have spaces for taxis & bikes, but what is missing is the integration of all mobility services and partnering with information and payment providers. If you Google - New Mobility Hubs and Bremer Germany, you’ll see examples of an integrated mobility system.
Consumer Education. PT needs to invest in comsumer education that provides individual, group and web-based consumer education about ALL mobility services and resources in a community, from ride-sharing to transit.
In summary, PT needs to advocate for resources to develop an integrated community mobility strategy. Let’s develop and promote services that could provide immediate benefit to a majority of our citizens in the shortest possible time, while investing for long term public transportation improvements. PT needs partners to provide sutainable transportation and grow market share (or modal split) of all alternative transportation services.
October 29th, 2007 at 2:29 pm
A couple of weeks ago I attended the APTA annual meeting in Charlotte, NC. While there, on Tuesday, I attended the APTA’s Visioning Iniative 10-11:30 am. The speakers were David Gardiner, Rae Zimmerman, Ron Tober, Peter Lehner and William Millar. After the presentations from each speaker there was a discussion/questions and answers about the future and vision of transit. The concensus was that a solution was not yet visioned and that people for the most part would not travel via mass transit until it was cool to do so or until a cool solution was designed and proposed. I am a system designer for C.T. Price Design Technologies and I have the answer, AIM-T (Automated Intermediate Mass Transit) it is a cool design and it answers all of the concerns mentioned above. AIM-T is cool and it is a paradigm shift in transitmethodology. It solves GHG, gas prices, congestion, homeland security issues, accessibility, convenience, proper marrige between public and private iniative, a national system that will connect east coast to west coast and Mexico to Canada. It will be a light rail system that will connect the suburbs to existing urban transit systems and connect rural America to the great cities. It is an automated system (no drivers necessary). It is intermediate meaning many smaller vehicles carrying 4-6 perhaps 8 passengers which means greater flexibilty and freedom to the passengers and there schedules and daily lives. The economic benefits to attacking the mass transit solution in America on a national basis is too monumental to imagine, but what a cool idea and what a cool design. Write me at 2800 Autumn Dr. Canton, Ga 30114 and I will be glad to send you a copy of the AIM-T abstract and vision statements. AIM-T the coolest design and makes traveling via mass transit a cool idea to the people.
October 29th, 2007 at 6:39 pm
Getting from A to B is a real hassle. Journeys are rarely made for the pleasure of the journey alone.
Public transport is a means to an end, and most people that use it do so because they have no other choice
What cars provide, that public transport has no hope of matching is comfort, convenience and personal space.
In a car you can control the temperature, don’t have to buy a ticket, don’t have to wait at a bus stop on a rainy day. On a full train you’re jostled and on an empty bus you hope that the next person that gets on won’t sit too close.
Its great to own a car because manufacturers spend millions on commercials telling the world that this is so. Buy the right kind of vehicle and you can be the envy of your friends.
Let’s face it folks, car owners will use public transport only when legislation or economics give them no choice. In the meantime, persuading them to hop on a bus is a fruitless task and the industry is spending far too much time and money on the issue.
In my opinion, the provision of accurate and consistent timetable information for existing and potential passengers is a far more valuable and achievable goal.