December 8, 2008

Will transit lose riders to cheap gas?

ARTICLE TOOLS

RSS Email Print

Send an e-mail to a colleague Please fill out the form below to send a link to this story to your colleague.
Your Name:	Your E-mail:
Colleague's Name:	Colleague's E-mail:
Message: (Max. 500 chars.)
Enter the verification code as it is shown below without spaces. (Case-insensitive) Enter Code: What's this? Image Code Verification Automated programs can't "read" the code you see in the box: only humans can. When you enter this code, it ensures that your order is going to a real person. If you don't see an image, make sure your browser is set to display images and try again. If you're not sure what the code is, make your best guess. If you're incorrect, you'll get another chance to enter a different code on the next screen. Close

By  Dan Reichard

• Laura[ December 8th, 2008 @ 1:21pm ]

  It seems that our riders are still riding and the numbers of riders is still growing despite the reduced gasoline prices. Maybe the public is a little wiser for the price increases and have decided not to return to their "gas" purchases.

• Barry [ December 8th, 2008 @ 1:25pm ]

  I do not believe the reduction in ridership will be great due to the extreme reducion in gas prices. Once people see how much they can save many will keep riding to offset the increase in prices for everything else such as groceries. Wages and salaries are not keeping up so consumers must find other ways to save.

• Mike Miller[ December 8th, 2008 @ 1:36pm ]

  If ridership declines it may be difficult to determine if it's a direct result of lower gas prices or the recession. With unemployment at 6.5% and growing, you will need to balance the jobless figure with ridership. It will be interesting to see AAA traffic counts in cities with higher unemployment numbers and comparing those stats with ridership figures.

• Robert Prince[ December 8th, 2008 @ 2:04pm ]

  I dont believe that ridership will suffer due to cheaper gas prices. With the number of people who have realized the savings netted by using public transportation and the unemployment rate rising, I believe we will see the number hold and possibly rise.

• Matt[ December 8th, 2008 @ 2:48pm ]

  As a college student, I see a lot of other students justifying long car trips now that gas is more affordable. I was personally hoping that high gas prices would have lasted longer.

• Ty Bobit[ December 8th, 2008 @ 2:53pm ]

  What we need to do is institute a 50 cent or $1.00 per gallon gas tax to ensure that we keep ridership up, and bring in sorely needed money to help pay for improvements to our infrastructure.

• Jim Vance[ December 8th, 2008 @ 6:07pm ]

  Probably yes, but there will be some lag in how quickly ridership levels might drop. People will wait to see how long the lower fuel prices will be around (looks like it might be for awhile) before they individually gauge the tradeoff between the time and cost spent in commuting by transit versus the time and cost spent by driving. Transit's best opportunity to lock in the short-term ridership gains is to leverage the public awareness and potential anti-recession infrastructure spending program outlays to establish or reinforce priority measures that provide a travel time advantage along the principal service routes.

• R.C. Noderer[ December 8th, 2008 @ 6:19pm ]

  Yes. The American society has focused on the automobile for at least 4 generations. Our lives, our homes, our employment areas, our recreation activities are supported by motor vehicles. Our Big Box retailers and Supermarkets and "suburbs/gated communities" are just some examples.
  It will take a huge investment in resources and strong leadership to reorient this society away from motor vehicles. Even if our society acknowledged and embraced a shift away from private motor vehicles, it will take generations to accomplish.

• Dick[ December 8th, 2008 @ 7:20pm ]

  Since transit agencies lose money on each new rider it would benefit the agencies to have the new riders go away. Why should someone in the middle of North Dakota pay a tax on gasoline to support someone in New York City taking a train? There are a lot of people who live in areas that will never be served by public transit. Why not make the transit riders pay for the operation and maintenance of the system via the fare box while construction of the system is paid for by all taxpayers? APTA claims the average transit rider saves $8400 per year. This money should go to operating the system.

• Dwight Mengel[ December 9th, 2008 @ 6:44am ]

  As an industry, we struggle for public transit to be part of an integrated system of community mobility. Transit should be part of a local partnership to create a consumer basket of transportation services targetted to individual needs. These services include: ridesharing, carsharing, guarranted ride, transportation vounchers, vanpools, taxi, subscription ride, one number for trip reservation, public transit, one stop for consumer education on all mobility options, one smart payment option for all modes, advances traveller infomration, etc. In short, an integrated bundle or basket of consumer-oriented mobility services. I beleive that many services should be market-priced. They just are not available in many places. Please ask more complex questions such as - how will transit agencies work in local partnership to create an integrated transportation services in their communities?

• Chris Chaney[ December 9th, 2008 @ 2:18pm ]

  I believe the current recession will have some impact on ridership because of high unemployment. As the industry moves forward, they should plan on developing and marketing transit services as environmentally good, energy efficient and cost effective. The transit industy should expect growth in ridership over the next three to five years.

• Jeff Brown[ December 10th, 2008 @ 6:32am ]

  Fuel prices aren't a big change, they're just a big news story. The economy is still down, and people are still losing income, and fuel prices aren't back to their old levels, they're just "less bad". People who switched to transit pay less insurance (not driving into the city), less parking, less bridge/tunnel tolls, and less wear on the vehicle (less oil changes). Anyone who starts driving to work again will have to re-start all those other expenses ... and that's for those who still have the car they used to drive.

• Ian[ December 10th, 2008 @ 1:31pm ]

  What "Dick" evidently doesn't realize is that currently the gas tax money does NOT pay for operation and maintenance. And it's pretty hard to overcome the obstacles to getting paid for construction, because of unequal administrative rules in the Bush transportaiton dept.
  
  But Dick does ask "why". IF there was to be a change, my "why" would be "because now we have a national transportation and energy strategy which saves fuel and keeps the money circulating at home by paying wages instead of sending it to Saudi Arabia. Because transit is labor intensive while the freeway is fuel intensive."
  
  My answer will have to be theoretical pending that change in policy.

Receive the latest Metro E-Newsletters in your inbox!

Join the Metro E-Newsletters and receive the latest news in your e-mail inbox once a week. SIGN UP NOW!

View the latest eNews
Express Tuesday | Express Thursday | University Transit