In this discussion, we need to get back to the basics of why we provide
transit. Transit provides basically two things: First, it provides mobility
for those that do not have any other mobility option. This is basically for
three groups: the elderly,the poor, and persons with disabilities. In the
Twin Cities, this group provides about 30% of transit ridership.
The second thing that transit does is provide an alternative to driving in a
single occupant vehicle. This is about 70% of transit riders. Most of the
"choice" riders are riding during rush hour to get to work. These choice
riders are important because a highway can carry about 2000 cars per lane
per hour. Adding just a couple hundred cars more throws the highway into
severe congestion where traffic becomes stop and go, bumper to bumper, and
speeds are severely reduced. If you can take those couple hundred people
and put them on buses, the highways can continue to function. Recent
statistics (Strib) showed that the sane lane on I-394 carried 46% of the
persons traveling in that corridor. Two-thirds of these people were on
buses and one-third were car pooling. Transit was having a substantial
impact on the functioning of that freeway. Other highways show similar
statistics, with buses carrying 20%-25% of the persons traveling in other
corridors.
Why do we care? Congestion has tripled in the last ten years. We have
moved from the 34th most congested city to the 14th in the last ten years.
(all these stats come from the Texas Transportation Institute). We are
going to add one-quarter more people to the metro area in the next twenty
years and do not have the money to build a quarter more lane miles
(especially not after this last session). Nor do we have the political will
to do the whole-sale destruction of neighborhoods that occurred when we
built the current highway system. Is transit the only answer? No. We
need a balanced approach, with some highway expansion, some transit
expansion, and some better growth techniques. All of these together will at
least help mitigate the growing congestion problem.
Transit is a function of density. The more dense an area, the easier it is
to serve with transportation and transit. One of the principles of Smart
Growth/New Urbanism/etc. is that we build more densely so we can provide
things like transportation more cost-effectively. Mr. Connolly notes that
there is less commuting from the core cities to the suburbs, which is a
function of density of jobs. When jobs are scattered as they are in the
suburbs, it is much harder to provide transit service. The density of the
downtown core allows efficient transit. Scattershot suburban development
does not.
Mr. Gaartner states that transit is more expensive than driving. This is
also a question of density. In higher density areas, transit can be the
most cost-effective mode of transportation. (the answer to this question
also depends on how you count federal subsidies and apportion the cost of
the street/highway system and how you cost out externalities like pollution
and such - using many of the same facts, folks have come to the opposite
conclusion).
Mr. Gaartner also notes that he has a friend who has a proposal for extended
transit service that no one is acting on. The unfortunate reality is that
transit service is funded substantially less than in other cities in the
country and this limits the amount of transit service available in the
region.
Carol Becker
Longfellow
> Tim suggests that if more commuters could reverse-commute, the system
would
> make more profits and be able to expand. Wizard tells us how drivers
suggested
> that the outbound buses should carry passengers but that was not
implemented.
>
> The elimination of "dead-head" runs might cause more passengers to be
carried,
> but the transit operators would argue that it would make the schedule for
the
> inbound run more subject to delays. I believe that there are union rules
> about time between runs and I don't know whether they apply when the
driver
> dead-heads out and starts an inbound run, versus an outbound passenger
carrying
> run.
>
> There are a lot of things that the transit operation doesn't do that make
> sense to some. I was talking to a nurse who takes buses all the time who
was
> on the Transit Advisory Board. When he suggested that there were a lot of
> people at United Hospital in Saint Paul who would take the bus home after
> their shift ended at midnight, if the bus stopped at 12:15 or so, it was
> ignored. He eventually quit the TAB because no suggestions seemed to get
> serious consideration.
>
> The fact is that the transit operation will never break even, even on just
> operating costs. The current fares pay only about 1/3 of operating costs
> and none of the capital costs, such as buying buses and building
maintenance
> facilities, bus hubs, etc. This figure is pretty much in line with
transit
> operations across the country. Only a few cities have enough ridership to
> come closer to breaking even on some parts. I don't have the figures, but
> some of the New York transit pieces break even or make a profit on
operating
> costs.
>
> The recently started construction of lrt guarantees that the portion paid
by
> fares will go down. The "feeder" bus lines will carry relatively few
people
> per hour of service. The final submission to the Feds showed that
implementing
> lrt without some kind of new funding (read bigger subsidy) would constrain
bus
> system expansion greatly.
>
> Wizard suggest paying higher gas taxes would cause people to ride the bus
more.
> Perhaps, but it wouldn't be a case of paying what they should pay. I have
> posted before references to a couple of studies, one from the U of M,
which
> conclude: 1) if bus, rail, and car trips were fully priced at the
marginal
> social cost per passenger mile, transit would be more expensive and people
> would shit to cars; 2) the users of transportation in the Twin Cities
directly
> pay 84% of all costs that could be attributed to them, government pays 9%,
and
> everyone pays indirectly for 7%. Now, if you extrapolate the 16% not paid
> directly to the 90%+ of the population that uses transit or auto to get
around,
> I would argue that only 1-2% of the total costs of transportation are not
paid
> by those who use them.
>
> While fuel taxes are high in Europe, etc, they are high because they are a
cash
> cow to pay for social programs having nothing to do with transportation or
> its effects. Note that 61% of the trips in the United Kingdom are by car,
> and 85% of the passenger miles, even with confiscatory taxes.
>
> Those who use cars pay incrementally for each mile. Consider the bus
riders.
> They can pay by the ride, get a pass for a certain number of trips, or buy
a
> monthly pass. If they buy a monthly pass, it is priced based on an
assumption
> of an average number of trips. If a pass holder makes more than that
number
> of trips in a month, the subsidy to that rider has gone up because they
are
> getting free rides. The more monthly passes, the more the subsidy.
>
> Remember too, that our transit operation aims at getting those who have a
> choice of whether to ride or drive into the bus. The demographics of
metro
> transit, used to show that buses aren't just for poor people, show that
> 25% of the riders earn less than $20,000 and 25% earn $70,000 or more. In
San
> Antonio, 40% earn less than $10,000. Figures from memory.
>
> Bruce Gaarder
> Highland Pkwy Saint Paul
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> _______________________________________
> Minneapolis Issues Forum - Minnesota E-Democracy
> Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more:
> http://e-democracy.org/mpls
>
_______________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - Minnesota E-Democracy
Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more:
http://e-democracy.org/mpls
