Future of public transport - an alternate view

[TuckertonRR]

I've been thinking of an alternate senario concerning transport in general & public transport in particular. (in the USA)

Considering current transport policy, I can see this senario play out :

1. oil (and thus diesel & gasoline) prices keep rising. 2. trains & buses companies raise fares & cut service. (this is already happening) more people pack onto already overcrowded trains + buses. 3. record transit ridership causes states & counties to figure they can cut public transports' budgets since they 'should be covering more of their expenses from fares'.

I envison in the end, all (or substantially all) transport will be eliminated because of high fuel prices. This will force even more personal vehicles (of all kinds) on the roads, which will become congested like in many large cities in Africa & Asia.

This is the opposite view of many on here, which figure public officials will "have to" invest more in transport versus personal vehicle infrastructure. I have a hunch that the basest American instincts may come out. Those of us on bikes will have it comparativeley easier than most. But, for the many who truly rely on buses & trains to take them to work & back, or for whatever else, may be in trouble. People here may be advised to not count on your local bus service running as an "alternate" to bike riding in the not-too-distant future.

Any thoughts?

[sprockets]

Greedy corporations aren't stupid. Oil companies know that oil is a fixed commodity; one that is running out. They will continue to milk it for as long as they can before "alternative" fuels are introduced to the market. The government will assist them by holding back viable alternative means of transportation until the greedy corporations are ready to shift their production to these other fuels for transportation. I know this sounds a bit conspiracy theorist, and I'm not really the tinfoil hat wearing kind of guy, but if you want an example see the documentary "who killed the electric car?" and make note of who is pushing for Hydrogen as an alternative fuel. Also look up Zenn car manufacturing in Canada. This is a Canadian company producing usable electric cars that the Canadian government will not allow to be used in Canada. Is it because electric vehicles are not allowed in Canada? No, electric bicycles are all over the Greater Toronto Area. It must then be because the electric bicycles are replacing very small displacement gas scooters instead of SUV's.

Here's an article: http://www.zenncars.com/media/documents/Financialpost.pdf

Dynasty vehicles failed the crash test in 2003, although Mr. Epp says he doesn't know why. "They tested them, they
claim they didn't pass, but won't provide any details of the test," he says. "We have no idea what improvements
would be required."

Basically:

Canadian Government: You're car didn't pass crash testing.

ZENN: Really? Wow, can I see the report so that we can upgrade it to meet or exceed Canadian crash test standards?

Canadian Government: Shut up!

[Platy]

I doubt that local governments will be able to muster the resources for public transit system improvements. It's already been spent on highways. They're maxed out on borrowing. Whatever they can scrape together will have to go for fixing bridges etc on the verge of collapse.

To borrow a phrase, we'll go into the future with the transit system we have, not the one we wish we had.

[donnamb]

I have a hunch that the basest American instincts may come out. Those of us on bikes will have it comparativeley easier than most. But, for the many who truly rely on buses & trains to take them to work & back, or for whatever else, may be in trouble. People here may be advised to not count on your local bus service running as an "alternate" to bike riding in the not-too-distant future.

Any thoughts?
I have a thought. If the basest American instincts truly do come out, invest in a really good bike lock and learn the most secure ways to use it.

[Elkhound]

Basically:

Canadian Government: You're car didn't pass crash testing.

ZENN: Really? Wow, can I see the report so that we can upgrade it to meet or exceed Canadian crash test standards?

Canadian Government: Shut up!

Doesn't Canada have a FOIA?

[TuckertonRR]

I have a thought. If the basest American instincts truly do come out, invest in a really good bike lock and learn the most secure ways to use it.

Oh, I can forsee violence too. The more I read Kunstler, I can see it happening. Not just bike locks, it wouldn't be bad to "invest" in a nice shotgun or semi-auto rifle....

[Doug5150]

I doubt that local governments will be able to muster the resources for public transit system improvements. It's already been spent on highways. They're maxed out on borrowing. Whatever they can scrape together will have to go for fixing bridges etc on the verge of collapse....
If you consider there to be basically three levels of government (federal, state and city) then cities don't pay much towards interstate funds quite frankly. It's state and federal funding.

What I can imagine is most interstates switching to becoming toll roads. The nature of their controlled-access makes that a pretty easy choice.

On the city/local level, I can also imagine that cities will meet budget shortfalls by simply not fully-maintaining most streets at all. They'll designate a few major streets and keep them in repair, and let the minor streets go into rot. For instance, when a water main breaks on a minor street--they'll dig it up and fix the pipe but when they fill the hole back in they'll just use gravel, they won't bother to pave it over again with asphalt or concrete. The same goes for sidewalk repairs too--sidewalks that get dug up on minor streets won't get fixed, just filled in with gravel and left. What bus lines are kept running will only be on the major streets, and a skinny-tire road bike isn't going to have a lot of places to ride after a while, particularly in climates with sub-freezing winters.

This already happened once, in East St Louis back when they went broke. There was no money for most city services, so they simply didn't get done. A lot of people think that cities have to do this stuff, and so it will always get done somehow, but it didn't there. You could complain to whoever you wanted, but it didn't change a thing--and the East St Louis dept of streets didn't start building bicycle trails because they couldn't afford to fix the streets for cars.

You might think "wouldn't it be great if they tore up the unused streets and converted them back to green space?", but that isn't going to happen either..... Tearing up streets takes tractors, and tractors need fuel--and the price of fuel is going to skyrocket. So what you'll end up with is a cityscape that looks something like the bad sections of Detroit now, but with pavement that's mostly only acceptable for a MTB at moderate speeds, and a few main roads that will always be busy with car traffic.

-------

A lot of people keep hoping that a urban area is the best place to be in an economic downturn, and I'm simply not convinced. Part of this is due to having seen what happened in East St Louis, IL years back (I didn't live there, but was close enough that the local newspaper carried all the stories). The other matter is what happened in New Orleans after the police mostly vacated--crime skyrocketed. The more populated an area is, the more dependent it is upon its police force to maintain order--and as that police budget gets cut, crime rises dramatically.
~

[Hobartlemagne]

I've been thinking of an alternate senario concerning transport in general & public transport in particular. (in the USA)

Considering current transport policy, I can see this senario play out :

1. oil (and thus diesel & gasoline) prices keep rising. 2. trains & buses companies raise fares & cut service. (this is already happening) more people pack onto already overcrowded trains + buses. 3. record transit ridership causes states & counties to figure they can cut public transports' budgets since they 'should be covering more of their expenses from fares'.

I envison in the end, all (or substantially all) transport will be eliminated because of high fuel prices. This will force even more personal vehicles (of all kinds) on the roads, which will become congested like in many large cities in Africa & Asia.

This is the opposite view of many on here, which figure public officials will "have to" invest more in transport versus personal vehicle infrastructure. I have a hunch that the basest American instincts may come out. Those of us on bikes will have it comparativeley easier than most. But, for the many who truly rely on buses & trains to take them to work & back, or for whatever else, may be in trouble. People here may be advised to not count on your local bus service running as an "alternate" to bike riding in the not-too-distant future.

Any thoughts?

Just approach it from an economics view of the rider. If bus fare costs less than gas for the car, then it is
a better deal to take the bus (assuming it goes where you need to go)

[Lamplight]

On the city/local level, I can also imagine that cities will meet budget shortfalls by simply not fully-maintaining most streets at all. They'll designate a few major streets and keep them in repair, and let the minor streets go into rot. For instance, when a water main breaks on a minor street--they'll dig it up and fix the pipe but when they fill the hole back in they'll just use gravel, they won't bother to pave it over again with asphalt or concrete. The same goes for sidewalk repairs too--sidewalks that get dug up on minor streets won't get fixed, just filled in with gravel and left. What bus lines are kept running will only be on the major streets, and a skinny-tire road bike isn't going to have a lot of places to ride after a while, particularly in climates with sub-freezing winters.

An abandoned road can be quite pleasant to ride on, as long as cars don't use it:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v214/lamplightsg/IMG_0913small.jpg

This road is on my commute, and years ago it was fenced off to motorized traffic. Nature is slowly taking it back, and while rough, it is a joy to ride on! The problem is, what you're talking about wouldn't exclude cars and therefore the road would likely get much worse very quickly. The plus side of that is many people would try to avoid a really rough street in their cars, though it may be perfectly fine for a bike with reasonably large tires.

[rajman]

I tend to find Neil Reynolds (the Globe and Mail columnist) to be a silly windbag, but he points out today that the average bus in North America carries 10 passengers per kilometer travelled.

His theory is that this makes public transit less efficient than driving, but this also indicates that the existing infrastructure is drastically underused (the buses he was talking about can carry 60 passengers). This suggests that in most areas transit use can increase dramatically without hitting capacity constraints or incurring higher costs.

One might point out that these same systems are nearer capacity at rush hour but commuting to work is a minority of trips that average people take with their cars.

The bottom line is that little investment may be needed to increase transit use between 2 and 5 fold. When transit systems are running close to capacity, AND use is spread out over longer periods than rush hour (say 12-16 hours a day), these systems can operate at a profit.

As an example the Toronto subway system paid for itself in less than 10 years, and the transit authority paid off their long-term bonds incurred for construction early.

When I was travelling around Chile (about 15 years ago), many people living in rural areas did not travel by private car. Instead they would take buses (which were relatively frequent even on rural routes because of the number of potential passengers), or Taxi Collectivo, which were taxis that would pick up as many people as could possibly fit in an old Lada. People would flag a cab (often already carrying passengers), pay a fare, and be dropped off on the main road. Both taxis and buses in these areas were purely private, for-profit enterprises, cheap, and convenient (at least in the daytime - I never took them at night).

If people refuse to own cars (or can't afford them, but still have some money) there are a lot of profitable enterprises that can get them from point A to B more cheaply, with or without public funding.

[hotwheels]

As a full time bike rider/ commuter I feel no sense of insulation from the current price fluctuations and as for a reduction in available supply -we are all in it together.

But if it comes down to the wire -I think a nationalized nuclear power program will be fast tracked (going to take a few years to get going).

[folder fanatic]

I've been thinking of an alternate senario concerning transport in general & public transport in particular. (in the USA)

Considering current transport policy, I can see this senario play out :

1. oil (and thus diesel & gasoline) prices keep rising. 2. trains & buses companies raise fares & cut service. (this is already happening) more people pack onto already overcrowded trains + buses. 3. record transit ridership causes states & counties to figure they can cut public transports' budgets since they 'should be covering more of their expenses from fares'.

I envison in the end, all (or substantially all) transport will be eliminated because of high fuel prices. This will force even more personal vehicles (of all kinds) on the roads, which will become congested like in many large cities in Africa & Asia.

This is the opposite view of many on here, which figure public officials will "have to" invest more in transport versus personal vehicle infrastructure. I have a hunch that the basest American instincts may come out. Those of us on bikes will have it comparativeley easier than most. But, for the many who truly rely on buses & trains to take them to work & back, or for whatever else, may be in trouble. People here may be advised to not count on your local bus service running as an "alternate" to bike riding in the not-too-distant future.

Any thoughts?

I do not need to wait for the near future in order to see how bad public transit has fallen over time. I live in Southern California. Over here, fair to good public transit options (like the electric trolley system) once was in existence in the past (around 55-60 years ago). Now a form of it has been resurrected, but it is very stunted compared to the past. We have a limited light rail, subway, and a scattering of unreliable buses to get around. So people still elect to use the auto to get around. Only the poor, soon-to-be poor, tourists, or kids use it seriously. About 30 years ago, I made a decision to use bikes to get around. It did cost me some jobs-but I don't miss these sorry ass excuses of jobs offered around here (they don't pay enough to live). I do use public transit if I must. But I do avoid it. It is very possible to be bike dependent for a radius of an area of around 10 miles. After that, a motor vehicle is the way to go-usually a private one.

[bragi]

I've been thinking of an alternate senario concerning transport in general & public transport in particular. (in the USA)

Considering current transport policy, I can see this senario play out :

1. oil (and thus diesel & gasoline) prices keep rising. 2. trains & buses companies raise fares & cut service. (this is already happening) more people pack onto already overcrowded trains + buses. 3. record transit ridership causes states & counties to figure they can cut public transports' budgets since they 'should be covering more of their expenses from fares'.

I envison in the end, all (or substantially all) transport will be eliminated because of high fuel prices. This will force even more personal vehicles (of all kinds) on the roads, which will become congested like in many large cities in Africa & Asia. This is the opposite view of many on here, which figure public officials will "have to" invest more in transport versus personal vehicle infrastructure. I have a hunch that the basest American instincts may come out. Those of us on bikes will have it comparativeley easier than most. But, for the many who truly rely on buses & trains to take them to work & back, or for whatever else, may be in trouble. People here may be advised to not count on your local bus service running as an "alternate" to bike riding in the not-too-distant future.

Any thoughts?

I see a somewhat more optimistic scenario. More and more people switch to public transport because of high fuel prices. County transit systems notice this, and are pleased. In response, they raise fares to pay for increased fuel prices of their own, but not so much that it sends riders scurrying back to their cars. Some cities decide to make their own biodiesel for their buses. Levies are passed, and tax money is diverted to mass transit from roads. Voters grumble, but go along because they're not stupid and can see the writing on the wall, plus they're sick of being stuck in traffic anyway. Large local employers, who've noticed that giving workers bus passes is a lot cheaper than building parking garages, support these developments. (We'll just pretend for now that oil prices haven't utterly destroyed the economy). Local transit systems use the money to expand their systems to meet the increased demand.

Of course, once again, if oil prices don't level off soon, or at least slow their rate of increase, mass transit won't be the first thing on people's minds.

[wahoonc]

If you consider there to be basically three levels of government (federal, state and city) then cities don't pay much towards interstate funds quite frankly. It's state and federal funding.

What I can imagine is most interstates switching to becoming toll roads. The nature of their controlled-access makes that a pretty easy choice.

On the city/local level, I can also imagine that cities will meet budget shortfalls by simply not fully-maintaining most streets at all. They'll designate a few major streets and keep them in repair, and let the minor streets go into rot. For instance, when a water main breaks on a minor street--they'll dig it up and fix the pipe but when they fill the hole back in they'll just use gravel, they won't bother to pave it over again with asphalt or concrete. The same goes for sidewalk repairs too--sidewalks that get dug up on minor streets won't get fixed, just filled in with gravel and left. What bus lines are kept running will only be on the major streets, and a skinny-tire road bike isn't going to have a lot of places to ride after a while, particularly in climates with sub-freezing winters.

This already happened once, in East St Louis back when they went broke. There was no money for most city services, so they simply didn't get done. A lot of people think that cities have to do this stuff, and so it will always get done somehow, but it didn't there. You could complain to whoever you wanted, but it didn't change a thing--and the East St Louis dept of streets didn't start building bicycle trails because they couldn't afford to fix the streets for cars.

You might think "wouldn't it be great if they tore up the unused streets and converted them back to green space?", but that isn't going to happen either..... Tearing up streets takes tractors, and tractors need fuel--and the price of fuel is going to skyrocket. So what you'll end up with is a cityscape that looks something like the bad sections of Detroit now, but with pavement that's mostly only acceptable for a MTB at moderate speeds, and a few main roads that will always be busy with car traffic.

-------

A lot of people keep hoping that a urban area is the best place to be in an economic downturn, and I'm simply not convinced. Part of this is due to having seen what happened in East St Louis, IL years back (I didn't live there, but was close enough that the local newspaper carried all the stories). The other matter is what happened in New Orleans after the police mostly vacated--crime skyrocketed. The more populated an area is, the more dependent it is upon its police force to maintain order--and as that police budget gets cut, crime rises dramatically.
~

:thumb:

Take a look at Highland Park, MI and the state of the infrastructure up there...Personally I think the place to be if there is a total collapse (and I don't think it will get that far) will be a small city (8k-12k). Preferably one that has at least some manufacturing base, with access to a rail head and/or interstate.

Aaron:)

[TuckertonRR]

Some cities decide to make their own biodiesel for their buses. Levies are passed, and tax money is diverted to mass transit from roads. .

An issue arises regarding biodiesel is how and who taxes it, and how much. Greedy states/Fed/towns will want a piece of it. Maybe there'll be "bootleg" biodiesel ?! :twitchy:

Heres a paragraph from Issues PA website (http://www.issuespa.net/articles/10938/) (a little dated)
(this is regarding the Penna. state tax on gasoline)

Taxes normally paid at the pump – the Liquid Fuels and Fuels Use, and Oil Franchise Taxes – generated the vast majority of those funds (97%). Overall growth rates in gas tax receipts have been relatively low. For example, over the past 5 years receipts increased 5.7%, barely more than half the rate of inflation. In the previous 10 years, the increase was only 13.3% compared to a 24.2% inflation rate. Obviously, a 3.8¢ increase for 2005 will have at least a short-term impact on the trends.

Rate of Growth: All Liquid Fuels Taxes

Liquid Fuels Taxes Inflation

1-Year Growth
0.7%
2.3%

5-Year Growth
5.7%
10.4%

10-Year Growth
13.3%
24.2%


The overriding reason for slow growth is a moderate increase in the number of miles driven offset by greater fuel efficiency. In a sense, funding for highways in Pennsylvania and other states has been a victim of the success of a national policy that’s resulted in a steady increase in the fuel efficiency of cars over the past 30 years. The result? Limited growth in the tax base.

What does this mean for the future of the gas tax?

Historically, gas tax yields have been relatively steady but at a growth rate lower than inflation. The result has been a growing difficulty to fund transportation needs over the past several years, particularly with the current uncertainty of federal funding. However, the scheduled increase in the Oil Franchise Tax rate on January 1, 2005 likely will provide some level of fiscal relief to the highway budget. How long this relief will last is anybody’s guess since it’s tied to the price of gasoline, the driving habits of the public, and the fuel efficiency of cars – all of which change over time.

Given the impending increase in the tax rate, is this the best time to consider an additional increase? Stay tuned.

[Dahon.Steve]

I've been thinking of an alternate senario concerning transport in general & public transport in particular. (in the USA)

Considering current transport policy, I can see this senario play out :

1. oil (and thus diesel & gasoline) prices keep rising. 2. trains & buses companies raise fares & cut service. (this is already happening) more people pack onto already overcrowded trains + buses. 3. record transit ridership causes states & counties to figure they can cut public transports' budgets since they 'should be covering more of their expenses from fares'.


With gas and diesel going through the roof, I can see a decrease in public trainsit in particular the bus. I can see transit fares going through the roof and will double in the next 7-10 years. Many train lines will become commuter services running several hours in the morning and evening with no weekend service. As it stands, transit is already cheap and can double or triple in price and people will still use it. The lines that may get cut will be those bus lines headed out to the burbs.

I don't see transit going away because there will be way more people using it in the future. The bus 20 years from now will be packed and standing room only! Millions of motorist will be forced to use public transit or what's left of it.

[Platy]

I have a thought. If the basest American instincts truly do come out, invest in a really good bike lock and learn the most secure ways to use it.
Thanks for the timely reminder. It inspired me to install a seat leash on my bike yesterday.

[patc]

Doesn't Canada have a FOIA?

A whoseiwhats?

[Elkhound]

A whoseiwhats?

Freedom of Information Act. The US Federal government and most if not all States have such. Upon a citizen's request, government agencies must (with certain exceptions such as sensitive personnel or medical records, documentation of ongoing criminal investigations, and the like) turn over information in a timely fashion. In a scenario like what you describe, the company could file a Freedom of Information Act request and the agency would be required by law to give them the information; if they refused, they'd have to explain to a judge why, and if the judge didn't think that their reason is good enough they can be ordered to turn it over, on pain of contempt of court charges against the head of the agency.

[patc]

Freedom of Information Act.

Aha! Yup, we have one of those, and while I think its commonly called by the same name the proper term is different.

In a scenario like what you describe, the company could file a Freedom of Information Act request and the agency would be required by law to give them the information; if they refused, they'd have to explain to a judge why, and if the judge didn't think that their reason is good enough they can be ordered to turn it over, on pain of contempt of court charges against the head of the agency.

I didn't describe a scenario, but I understand what you mean.