Transit Use Boom, but in Some Surprising Cities

Transit use boomed from 2006-2008, but not in traditionally transit-friendly areas. This shows hope for more transit use in traditionally car-oriented places in the US in the future.

An analysis of the most recent transit use data from the U.S. Census Bureau shows that transit use grew by up to 47% in major metropolitan areas in the U.S. from 2006-2008, with several metro regions in the South and West growing by more than 10%.

The South and West, being more dominated by automobile-oriented development and auto use, have historically struggled to get significant transit ridership. However, the top ten cities with the highest recent increase in ridership include several metro areas in the South and West, including Charlotte, NC (47%), Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA (26.7%), Pheonix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ (23.6%), San Antonio, TX (15.1%) and others. This seems to shine a light of hope on increased transit use in the southern and western U.S. in the future.

First, however, why are we seeing a boom in these places?

One of the main factors expected to have caused the increase in ridership in these areas was the increased price of gasoline. As gasoline prices increase, transit ridership is shown to increase in major U.S. cities. As Nate Berg reports, “Ridership increases around the country have been linked to the temporary jump in oil prices last year, when the price of oil peaked at more than $147 per barrel in July 2008.”

Although these ridership increases may drop in 2009 with the price of oil dropping, these figures still show potential ridership increases concurring with future variations in transportation costs.

Other factors which might have triggered the ridership increases in some of these places are increased or better-quality services. Charlotte, in particular, opened a new light-rail system (the first in North Carolina) and expanded its services considerably in that time. Bradley Weaver, a spokesman at the Riverside Transit Agency (which saw a transit commuting increase of 26.7%), says: “We brought service to where it was needed, and that was reflected in our ridership numbers.”

Median incomes of the riders in some of these areas (i.e. Detroit and Charlotte — the top two on the list) rose sharply in this period. This shows the possibility of transit use extending into higher income classes more. As Berg writes, in the case of this happening in the Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario region: “Essentially, the number indicates that people with higher income levels became more likely to ride public transit to work.”

With increased costs of driving or better quality transit services such as light-rail in the future, we could see more people shifting over to green, clean public transit more. Even in traditionally auto-dominated places across the U.S. We could have expected it in normally transit-friendly regions, but it is nice to see the possibility in these places as well!

The top ten list for transit ridership increases from 2006-2008 is as follows:

1. Charlotte-Gastonia-Concord, NC (47%)

2. Detroit-Warren-Livonia, MI (30%)

3. Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA (26.7%)

4. Pheonix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ (23.6%)

5. Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloominton, MN-WI (21.6%)

6. Sacramento-Arden Arcade-Roseville, CA (18%)

7. St. Louis, MO (16%)

8. Denver-Aurora, CO (15.6%)

9. San Antonia, TX (15.1%)

10. Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA (13.4%)

via planetizen

2) Eco-Friendly Rail for Disneyland and Anaheim

3) Battery Operated Prototype Train Hits the Norfolk Southern Railway Tracks

4) Super High Speed Rail for China — $4 Billion Purchase

Image Credit 1: James Willamor via flickr under a Creative Commons license

Image Credit 2: wings777 via flickr under a Creative Commons license

Image Credit 3: James Willamor via flickr under a Creative Commons license

zach

David, it is a good question. There is a history that follows your thoughts a bit. The book Street Smart (http://reconnectingamerica.org/public/reports/394), as well as others on this topic, go through the history of how streetcars and other mass transit were rooted out of American transportation, largely by auto industry leaders as you suggest. There are even gleeful pictures of some such industry leaders burning the last streetcars in major cities. Streetcars used to be all over the US, looking like thick spiderwebs on a map.

Now, I think the issue is more complicated, because we have an infrastructure built for cars now. So, there are such industry leaders pushing for auto-oriented cities and suburbs, but also other private interests (i.e. suburban developers, real estate agencies, builders, etc.) who are invested in this style of development. Also, the public is used to it in many places now.

Additionally, we have the chicken & egg story. Many governments and private agencies cannot (or are unwilling to) add better public transport if there isn’t demonstrated ridership, but there can’t be demonstrated ridership in that place without better transport! So, which needs to come first? Neither the private individual nor the governments or agencies are willing (or perhaps able) to go first in many cases (some exceptions being Charlotte and Portland, Oregon, where the governments were forward thinking and invested in these systems and are seeing the great benefits of them now — i.e. 4:1 revenue to investment ratios for streetcar systems).

So, now, we are stuck with more complicated situations. However, experiences show how some cities can act proactively and be models of success. These are also the places becoming increasingly more popular to live in — topping the country’s liveability and desirability lists.
zach

David, it is a good question. There is a history that follows your thoughts a bit. The book Street Smart (http://reconnectingamerica.org/public/reports/394), as well as others on this topic, go through the history of how streetcars and other mass transit were rooted out of American transportation, largely by auto industry leaders as you suggest. There are even gleeful pictures of some such industry leaders burning the last streetcars in major cities. Streetcars used to be all over the US, looking like thick spiderwebs on a map.

Now, I think the issue is more complicated, because we have an infrastructure built for cars now. So, there are such industry leaders pushing for auto-oriented cities and suburbs, but also other private interests (i.e. suburban developers, real estate agencies, builders, etc.) who are invested in this style of development. Also, the public is used to it in many places now.

Additionally, we have the chicken & egg story. Many governments and private agencies cannot (or are unwilling to) add better public transport if there isn’t demonstrated ridership, but there can’t be demonstrated ridership in that place without better transport! So, which needs to come first? Neither the private individual nor the governments or agencies are willing (or perhaps able) to go first in many cases (some exceptions being Charlotte and Portland, Oregon, where the governments were forward thinking and invested in these systems and are seeing the great benefits of them now — i.e. 4:1 revenue to investment ratios for streetcar systems).

So, now, we are stuck with more complicated situations. However, experiences show how some cities can act proactively and be models of success. These are also the places becoming increasingly more popular to live in — topping the country’s liveability and desirability lists.
zach

David, it is a good question. There is a history that follows your thoughts a bit. The book Street Smart (http://reconnectingamerica.org/public/reports/394), as well as others on this topic, go through the history of how streetcars and other mass transit were rooted out of American transportation, largely by auto industry leaders as you suggest. There are even gleeful pictures of some such industry leaders burning the last streetcars in major cities. Streetcars used to be all over the US, looking like thick spiderwebs on a map.

Now, I think the issue is more complicated, because we have an infrastructure built for cars now. So, there are such industry leaders pushing for auto-oriented cities and suburbs, but also other private interests (i.e. suburban developers, real estate agencies, builders, etc.) who are invested in this style of development. Also, the public is used to it in many places now.

Additionally, we have the chicken & egg story. Many governments and private agencies cannot (or are unwilling to) add better public transport if there isn’t demonstrated ridership, but there can’t be demonstrated ridership in that place without better transport! So, which needs to come first? Neither the private individual nor the governments or agencies are willing (or perhaps able) to go first in many cases (some exceptions being Charlotte and Portland, Oregon, where the governments were forward thinking and invested in these systems and are seeing the great benefits of them now — i.e. 4:1 revenue to investment ratios for streetcar systems).

So, now, we are stuck with more complicated situations. However, experiences show how some cities can act proactively and be models of success. These are also the places becoming increasingly more popular to live in — topping the country’s liveability and desirability lists.
David

Why do u think more large cities (I.e. Houston, TX) don’t use more mass transit??? I often get the feeling we are discouraged from doing so by big business ( oil, gas, tire & car, mechanics, road construction co., etc.). It is not in their best interest, therefore we do not get what we should have ( lightrail to all reaches of Houston or other large cities, better bus routes that connect to more areas). Why doesn’t a major metropolitan city have a decent lightrail system? If we did, I would love to take it to work every day instead of sitting in traffic for 30 or 45 min. stressing out, wasting gas and adding carbon emissions to our air. But we don’t have it, and so I can’t.
David

Why do u think more large cities (I.e. Houston, TX) don’t use more mass transit??? I often get the feeling we are discouraged from doing so by big business ( oil, gas, tire & car, mechanics, road construction co., etc.). It is not in their best interest, therefore we do not get what we should have ( lightrail to all reaches of Houston or other large cities, better bus routes that connect to more areas). Why doesn’t a major metropolitan city have a decent lightrail system? If we did, I would love to take it to work every day instead of sitting in traffic for 30 or 45 min. stressing out, wasting gas and adding carbon emissions to our air. But we don’t have it, and so I can’t.
Susan Kraemer

Wow. Those are some really staggering changes!

Here in the SF BAy Area one big improvement is “smart” bus stops on express routes now tell you with live updated electronic news exactly when your next bus is really due – so you don’t get that abandoned feeling.

It is actually more efficient and faster to go some places by bus than drive with bus rightofways and express buses.
Susan Kraemer

Wow. Those are some really staggering changes!

Here in the SF BAy Area one big improvement is “smart” bus stops on express routes now tell you with live updated electronic news exactly when your next bus is really due – so you don’t get that abandoned feeling.

It is actually more efficient and faster to go some places by bus than drive with bus rightofways and express buses.
Susan Kraemer

Wow. Those are some really staggering changes!

Here in the SF BAy Area one big improvement is “smart” bus stops on express routes now tell you with live updated electronic news exactly when your next bus is really due – so you don’t get that abandoned feeling.

It is actually more efficient and faster to go some places by bus than drive with bus rightofways and express buses.