Survey Shows US Public Transit Use Increasing
07 October 2008
 |
| High gasoline prices top the reasons for a shift to public transit; concern for the environment came in fourth at 4%. Click to enlarge. |
Public transit ridership is increasing in the US to modern record levels, according to APTA (American Public Transportation Association). In the second quarter of 2008, public transportation ridership increased by 5.2% as Americans took more than 2.8 billion trips. Public transit ridership currently is on track to beat the 50-year high of 10.3 billion trips that were taken last year.
A new nationwide survey commissioned by the HNTB Companies, an employee-owned organization of infrastructure firms, found that more than 24 million Americans—11% of the adult population—are using buses, light rail, commuter rail and other forms of public transportation more than they did last year. An even greater percentage of survey respondents, 16%, said they expect their ridership to increase in the coming year.
Nearly one in three Americans (32%) said their biggest motivator to choose public transportation over driving would be high gas prices. The survey found the second most popular reason someone would choose public transportation over driving is more convenience (14%). Avoiding traffic (5%) was a distant third, followed by concern for the environment (4%).
The survey also found:
More than twice as many men as women (15% versus 7%) say they’re using public transit more often than a year ago.
Young Americans are making the transition in greater numbers. Nearly one in five adults ages 18-34 have increased their public transit usage in the last year (19%)—more than twice the number of Americans ages 35 and up who make the same claim (8%).
The average American who has public transportation available to him or her uses it once a week, in effect giving their car the day off.
Nearly four in ten Northeasterners (38%) use public transportation, more than any other region in the country.
Southerners have fewer options. One in ten says they do not have public transit where they live or work—twice the number of Northeasterners and Westerners (5% each), and nearly twice of those in the Midwest (6%).
The HNTB Companies public transit survey polled a random nationwide sample of 1,000 Americans 24-29 September 2008. The survey was conducted by Kelton Research, which used an e-mail invitation and an online survey. Quotas are set to ensure reliable and accurate representation of the total US population ages 18 and over. The margin of error is ± 3.1%.
The HNTB Companies is an employee-owned organization of infrastructure firms. The three operating companies of HNTB Companies include HNTB Corporation, a transportation, engineering, planning and construction management firm; HNTB Architecture Inc.; and HNTB Federal Services Corporation. HNTB works on top public transit projects, including MetroLink in St. Louis, Mo.; Caltrain in San Francisco and San Jose, Calif.; and Sound Transit in Seattle and Tacoma, Wash.
I like the idea of commuters taking a 'car-off' day now and again. That should reduce congestion; not swamp transit systems; get people used to understanding the transit schedules, etc.; and yet not completely go cold-turkey on the auto convenience or fully crush the auto makers. Further, i hope that this will allow a more significant investment in making transit comparable in price, trip time, convenience, and usability. A wide diversity of choices prevents overwhelming any one type of system, yet allows people to mix-it-up when they want. Also, allowing car-lots at strategic locations to transit will promote a convenience that will avoid multiple transit transfers, support for more far-flung communities, and reduce full car commute to partial transit commute. Planning with a coordinated system is far more difficult than just saying 'more transit now', but the complexity is worth it for the 'choice'.
Posted by: Jer | 07 October 2008 at 08:51 AM
I am delighted to hear that public transit ridership is increasing.
This increase in ridership, in place of automobile use (especially if said auto use is driver-only!) is something the intellectual community should take heart in. Ironically, the kind of people one would think ought to be glad about the recent increase in public transit ridership, are often the ones most possessed by visceral dislike of the present administration.
It is important for us to realize that people are not riding buses or rail transit out of altruism. You can scream about the impending end of the world from global warming all you want, but the reality of human nature is that people are riding buses and rail transit not out of altruism, but because of rising gasoline prices. This of course is also the motivating factor behind increase in popularity of smaller cars, at the expense of massive sport utility vehicles.
Yet the same kind of people who want everyone to drive smaller cars or use public transit, all too often will cry in their coffee over oil companies ripping us off, or the squeeze on the poor and middle class. Let's face it: we can't have it both ways. If gas becomes cheap (actually as I write this, gas prices have been going down in my area), people are going to go right back to cars instead of transit - and big cars at that, if said cars are available.
Posted by: Alex Kovnat | 07 October 2008 at 09:36 AM
So far, automakers were competing among themselves, now they are competing with trains & buses. No wonder, Toyota's sales declined 30% last month.
Its time, they start pushing alternatives like Flex-fuel and CNG vigorously.
Seems there are 9 million CNG powered vehicles and 11 million Flex-fuel vehicles in the World today.
Parallely they should make the small cars with more comfort and features that are typically found only in high end vehicles.
Posted by: Max Reid | 07 October 2008 at 09:52 AM
> get people used to understanding the transit schedules, etc.; and yet not completely go cold-turkey on the auto convenience or fully crush the auto makers.
I see no reason for people NOT to go cold turkey; with resource depletion, traffic congestion, and all of the other issues with individual powered transportation, supporting the auto industry in unquestioning manner is like proposing that people should still be using horse buggies so as not to "crush" the buggy industry.
Interestingly enough, if the trend noted above continues, it will revert back to the times before the scam perpetrated by GM, Standard Oil, and Firestone in the Great American Streetcar Scandal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy
Posted by: Will S | 07 October 2008 at 11:25 AM
@ Will S
"...I see no reason for people NOT to go cold turkey..."
far longer time transit commute. under-serviced suburbs/country-side. poor on-time record. overcrowded cabs. unfriendly transit staff. groceries and cargo. young children. multi-stop errands. poor late night service. transit strikes. complicated multi-transfer route. miserable loud and smelly environment. uncomfortable with poor ventilation/heat/cold. occasional transit breakdowns. loss of jobs in manufacturing sector. long stop wait times. poor weekend service. many transit types use roadways so they get clogged as well. is paid for by tax dollars. not a fun way to take a vacation trip. not conducive to spontaneous road-trips. national park access poor.... (off the top of my head - The point: people are generally lazy, greedy, and stupid - and until you change that (impossible) no japan-style transit)
---
The idea suggested within the poll that gas mileage pricing is the most significant reason to take transit over cars may imply that if/when the cost of running a car becomes cheap again, for whatever reason (they all become smaller, or electricity or hydrogen or 2ndGenBio) we may find that autos resurge, probably permanently. However. if at that time they don't pollute and use energy that is renewable and use technology/materials that are recycled/recyclable.. what argument would any enviro have? (health? safety? feeling of local community? doing your part? - good luck with that)
Posted by: Jer | 07 October 2008 at 12:04 PM
> far longer time transit commute
Rush hour traffic is so bad in many major cities that transit is much faster.
> under-serviced suburbs/country-side.
Many commuter rail lines extend far out into the suburbs, and there's nothing stopping further expansion. Sure, farmers and exurbanites might not be served, but so what?
> poor on-time record.
?? Show us the stats that support such a blanket statement.
> overcrowded cabs.
That means they are popular! and likely to expand the number of cabs...
> unfriendly transit staff.
?? This is a joke
> groceries and cargo.
I've carried a full bag of groceries onto transit vehicles many times. Sure, a shopping spree to last weeks might not be doable, but I prefer my food to be fresh.
> young children.
I've taken my young children on local rail on numerous occasions.
> multi-stop errands.
You must live in a car dependent neighborhood. Lots of shops are available around most local rail stops.
> poor late night service.
What percentage of the people need local rail between midnight and 5am? In large cities, some rail runs most of the time anyway.
> transit strikes.
I agree that this can be an issue.
>complicated multi-transfer route.
Only to those who are completely new to transfers (if such transfers are actually needed).
> miserable loud and smelly environment.
Where do you live???
> uncomfortable with poor ventilation/heat/cold.
I've taken bus transport in all seasons in the Mid Atlantic for many years, and have no such complaints.
>occasional transit breakdowns.
Occasional car breakdowns, especially other cars during rush hour.
> loss of jobs in manufacturing sector.
This is the real point, isn't it? That simply means shifting to opportunities in mass transit and other sectors.
> long stop wait times.
You need to be more clear.
> poor weekend service.
Dependent on where one is.
> many transit types use roadways so they get clogged as well.
Buses, yes.
> is paid for by tax dollars.
Roadways are paid for by tax dollars.
> not a fun way to take a vacation trip.
Your personal opinion. Besides, one could rent a car if they really wanted to.
> not conducive to spontaneous road-trips.
Might this be one reason Bush says, "America is addicted to oil"?
> national park access poor
Take a Flexcar.com or Zipcar.com, or rent a car for overnight stays.
The car culture is deeply engrained in many in the US. The use of tobacco products used to be as well.
Posted by: Will S | 07 October 2008 at 12:48 PM
@ Will S
You are talking about a lifestyle change not an increase in transit usage. No Dice.
Posted by: Jer | 07 October 2008 at 01:06 PM
@Jer
Yes, volatile and increasing oil prices will force lifestyle changes upon us before we have the time (or resources) to switch over to all-nuclear-charged electric cars. You may not want this to be the case, but YMMV...
Posted by: Will S | 07 October 2008 at 01:33 PM
@ Will S
Excellent. Then we have a bet.
My optimistic vision of an inspiring technological future with diversity and choice in transportation options from bikes to sports cars to minvans to SUVs all clean, fast, and efficient (though maybe still congested, but meh). My specific point being that the NUMBER of personal vehicles from now until 2020 will continue to increase (on average over the longterm) at least with the increase in population. My specific point that transit use will increase as well with diversity in transportation options by the increase in population over the long term. And, that the total number of kilometers (i am not american) of car trips will also increase by far more that the increase in american population (over the longterm) to 2020.
-versus-
Your pessimistic vision of a race of miserable souls who trudge their way on a mundane daily transit schedule - no individuality, no passion. With over-regulation and punitive taxes crushing any interest in personal self-fulfillment from roadtrips and an efficient system of choice in a far range of shopping, trip, and adventure options. Car use will dwindle along with most people's interest in land travel and new experiences beyond their easy 20km transit system. Manufacturing jobs from personal transportation will collapse and overall unemployment will exceed 10%. A system of persons not often traveling over 20km will lead to what some refer to as small-town (or urban neighborhood) syndrome where one's experiences limit them to a narrow range of choices. Being subject to the same climate, same mix of culture and limited set of urban experiences tends to create a narrow perception of reality - similar to those people who never leave the hometown they grew up in. People are not generally healthier or more optimistic about the future - not being allowed any vices or individual traveling freedom without tremendous costs and hassles.
Sounds great. Good luck. See you in 2020 to compare.
Posted by: Jer | 07 October 2008 at 03:16 PM
>And, that the total number of kilometers (i am not american) of car trips will also increase by far more that the increase in american population (over the longterm) to 2020.
This is referred to as a 'cornucopian' scenario, where we can live out our lives as if there were no such thing as ultimate resource limitations. You will be surprised by the IEA oil resources update coming out in November. If you work for an automaker in some form or other, now might be the time to seek other employment.
> Your pessimistic vision of a race of miserable souls who trudge their way on a mundane daily transit schedule - no individuality, no passion.
Here we visualize the most dreary of existences possible; almost a gulag, but not quite. You seem to believe that your life would be for naught if it weren't for your car, that it is the primary source of your happiness. Please read this article and tell me your thoughts on it.
And then look at this slideshow of a city where people do not drive cars but travel to other cities by rail, and discern their level of contentment. Then take a look here to see other cities around the world that have similar city centers.
Posted by: Will S | 07 October 2008 at 04:56 PM
You can certainly describe as many ideal car-free systems as you want. The exception does not make the rule invalid. The bottom line in my thinking is that the more sensations/experiences/variety that you can cram into your life the more sophisticated, happy, wise, and worldly you are - the true measure of success - and that can be best achieved by having an ultra-convenient, independent, self-contained mode of travel - every moment maximized, every adversity overcome - ultimately adaptable and spontaneous. Even in stop-and-go traffic i can learn a new language, have a 'private' cellphone call, conduct business, etc. It is infinitely adaptable, comfortable, and convenient. And that is too important to give up for the current blip of energy and resource troubles.
A good reason for maintaining car production and infrastructure.. it is easier to add a transit system to a car society than adding a car society to a transit-dense system.
Pessimism in the energy and resources world is only a self-fulfilling prophecy by those who are bound by it's negativeness - it is merely a phase to technologically overcome. Vision, research, and optimism are more likely the means to solutions - not retreat into sacrifice and compromise. As an architect with an engineering background, i see great society-building vision and potential in technology to solve all problems and facilitate a truly post-carbon world - but like anything, adversity is the mother of invention providing you stay emotionally positive. New ways of thinking on the horizon include: closed-loop manufacturing - an immense reduction in extraction - a great leap forward in recycling and recyclability. New and improved energy sources that meet tremendous demands.
Further, I am amused that you think i drive generally just because of how much i support keeping the car within the pool of transportation options. Actually, i only drive once or twice a week, bike in the right season and then take the train to work otherwise - though my job takes me widely. I just want all transportation options open. I only rebel against those who would choose to limit my freedom to choose (arggh, what an american thing to say - but somehow appropriate when used with foresight).
That all being said, i trust that technology will conquer all and that you only risk your own sanity by being untowardly pessimistic about the future.
Posted by: Jer | 07 October 2008 at 06:04 PM
All the car vs public transportation debates are important and useful. The very relevant fact is that the infrastructure for car travel is here in the US and (in most of the country) public transport is not. Now - you can always have buses. The gas mileage on a bus is so bad that people almost do better in a high mileage compact - especially hypermiling a hybrid. Sound crazy - think 4 mpg and average capacity of <20 people. (A prius can easily get 70 mpg if driven at 40 mph - getting you around faster than a bus) Lots of driving around empty or filling up. Now - maybe not in Manhattan but at the density most of the US is set up as .....
The other fact is that given a choice - most people want a car. In Europe, car ownership has been on the rise for years - despite a tax structure that actively discourages it. Now in the US, we are so heavily subsidized to drive that everyone does it. But even if we weren't - those that could still afford to would still drive.
I for one have a job and live in an area that requires a car. Now - you could come up with a system that eliminates that but it would be quite the upheavel (and would be really expensive). I would still drive at $50 a gallon for gas but hopefully I would have something a bit more efficient than my HCH.
Posted by: 300TTto545 | 08 October 2008 at 02:17 AM
@ Jer
> The bottom line in my thinking is that the more sensations/experiences/variety that you can cram into your life the more sophisticated, happy, wise, and worldly you are - the true measure of success - and that can be best achieved by having an ultra-convenient, independent, self-contained mode of travel - every moment maximized, every adversity overcome - ultimately adaptable and spontaneous.
So indeed your happiness is defined by your possession and utilization of an automobile.
> And that is too important to give up for the current blip of energy and resource troubles.
Did you read the IEA oil resources update coming out in November? If you don't like the WSJ, then try the BBC.
Ah, but you believe...
> Pessimism in the energy and resources world is only a self-fulfilling prophecy by those who are bound by it's negativeness - it is merely a phase to technologically overcome. Vision, research, and optimism are more likely the means to solutions - not retreat into sacrifice and compromise.
So if we only want there to be more energy, then we just have to visualize that there will be more, and magic happens. A cornucopian dream, no doubt, but what is the current reality?
If you haven't seen the conventional oil production statistics, and projections by petro-geologists, then I suggest you examine them to see that oil production has stalled since late 2004, and previously optimistic oil production projections from the IEA (see 2006) have been replaced with pessimism (2008).
Optimism is great, though, as Ben Franklin once said, "He that lives upon hope will die fasting". How long will it take to transition over to an electric car fleet, even assuming the battery materials are abundant and cheap enough, which lithium most assuredly is not?
> Actually, i only drive once or twice a week, bike in the right season and then take the train to work otherwise
I would like to believe you, though based on all of your other comments about how nasty you perceive passenger rail to be, pardon me if I choose to assume you are greenwashing your real transport habit.
> I just want all transportation options open.
Being in Europe, you must be aware of car-sharing (also known as car clubs) where a pool of vehicles is made available to a neighborhood to use as they are truly needed when mass transit doesn't get someone to a car dependent destination. The popularity of carsharing has now spread to 600 cities, so if you are in Europe, I'm willing to bet you know someone who uses this service.
So just as the EU moves toward net carbon-neutral buildings, expect there to be less individual car ownership (and less VMT) per capita, and more use of transit, bicycling, telecommuting, and carsharing. I'm more than willing to wager such an outcome by 2015, without waiting for 2020.
And please read the articles I linked above and give your opinion on each.
@ 300TT
> The other fact is that given a choice - most people want a car.
Sure, and they will also take on a lifestyle that expands to whatever the current resource limitations are, until the resource production peaks and begins to fall. See the yeast population profile in the brewing of beer. Unless you believe that magic will happen, and sources of boundless energy will be made available "because they always have".
> I would still drive at $50 a gallon for gas
Since you're in the US, do you believe Bush's comment "America is addicted to oil"? Could you read the articles I linked above and provide your honest opinion on them?
Posted by: Will S | 08 October 2008 at 03:51 AM
"post-carbon world..."
Try to understand, there is no such thing now or in the foreseeable future as all life-forms known to man are carbon based. But maybe you know otherwise?
Posted by: nrg nut | 08 October 2008 at 01:49 PM
For people who still don't know that environmentalists are the same as communists: The USSR was an entirely public transport based society: cars (Ladas were for the extremely wealthy). The comments here are the same: if you want trains and metros just "because i want" instead of geographical and business reasons, it will fail. And remember: a locomotive in a port is a diesel one, cause those lines cannot be electrified; (cargo loading problem) Where is the common sense on this forum?
Posted by: dmf | 08 October 2008 at 02:18 PM
"For people who still don't know that environmentalists are the same as communists: "
I think I've heard just about everything now.
"if you want trains and metros just "because i want" instead of geographical and business reasons, it will fail."
Think about how much oil is used in a culture that depends on daily transportation by car. Where does that oil come from in a fungible market? Just because we don't buy all our oil from Russia, Iran, Venezuela, and the rest of the Middle East doesn't mean our high level of consumption doesn't support their economies, many of which impart significant amounts of their money to terrorists, just like McCain says.
"remember: a locomotive in a port is a diesel one, cause those lines cannot be electrified; (cargo loading problem) Where is the common sense on this forum?"
Don't confuse a yard locomotive with a long haul locomotive. Link to 'green' yard locomotive - http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0CYH/is_2_6/ai_82472084
“Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen.” -- Albert Einstein
Posted by: rjs | 09 October 2008 at 10:08 AM
@ Will S
Poor sad, unambitious creature.
Only time will tell whether humanity continues to pursue a life of individual-mobility-based adventure and convenience -or- withdraw within themselves as a broken and submissive race - no better than a hive of ants toiling in communal-everything-misery. To 2020 then, to see.
Posted by: Jer | 10 October 2008 at 10:00 AM
@ Jer,
I could as easily say, "poor, sad, car-dependent creature", but I'll take the high road. :-)
As a European yourself (or so you claim), if you see Venice and many other European cities with extensive carfree zones as "broken and submissive" and in "misery", then you fit the profile of those President Bush refers to as "addicted to oil". Automakers for the most part are taking it hard in the shorts right now, so don't expect your vision of glittering domed cities and flying cars to come true anytime soon.
Posted by: Will S | 10 October 2008 at 01:03 PM
Quite informative…Thanks for sharing nice post..
regards
GIS data processing
Photogrammetry companies
Posted by: Account Deleted | 15 July 2009 at 10:05 PM