[miketoronto]

It is common knowledge that transit systems here in North America are very very big into attracting the "choice" rider to transit. That is usually a person who has a car for any trip they want, but decide to take transit for some trips.

However do you think it is time transit systems started attracting people to make a lifestyle choice to take transit and not just use it to commute to work?

Your views on this. Can you see transit ever becoming viable in many of our metro regions again, if we just rely on work commuters, for 9-5 commutes and then let the transit system become only for the poor in the off peak hours?

[DrewDizzle]

I don't usually advocate government interfering w/ the free market, however, I do think local municipalities should raise the cost of downtown parking to create more 'choice' drivers. Do something similar to what Washington, DC does and require permit stickers on cars permit to park within a certain 'district'.

Profits from parking funds should go towards mass transit projects.

[hk_ayu]

Charge 100% tax on new private cars and 50% tax on petrol, like they do in Hong Kong.

You buy a car of HK$150,000, you pay HK$300,000

You feed your car with 3L petrol, you pay for the price of 4.5L

[pdxtex]

dude...dood? dude!!! peak oil will attract more transit riders then any other factor! the only reason we still drive to work is because its cheaper then riding the bus. wait until those barrels hit 100 bucks and you will see stats change. transit organizations will not dictate who rides their system, economics and resources will dictate how the transit systems evolve.

[Justin10000]

^^Except that many transit agencies are not prepared to take on many riders, and considering how long it takes to build a simple rail line, or even BRT route, having a sudden change in lifestyle is going to cause havoc.

In my opinion, the government needs to intervene on those damn greedy developers, who will build sprawling suburban streets, and those awful power centres in the middle of nowhere. Developers have to much free rein, and it needs to be addressed.

[Cambridgite]

^^Except that many transit agencies are not prepared to take on many riders, and considering how long it takes to build a simple rail line, or even BRT route, having a sudden change in lifestyle is going to cause havoc.

Thing is, it wont change "suddenly". As far as peak oil is concerned, we have just recently turned the peak. Prices will rise gradually. We are already seeing the effects of that now, but it will continue to get much worse over time. Instead of gritting our teeth and bitching about the greed of oil companies, it's time to start taking incremental steps in transit improvements to solve this problem. After all, we all played some role in creating the mess we're in.

In my opinion, the government needs to intervene on those damn greedy developers, who will build sprawling suburban streets, and those awful power centres in the middle of nowhere. Developers have to much free rein, and it needs to be addressed.

Developers can't necessarily do whatever they want. They have to follow the zoning that the city has laid out for them. Cities all around North America (particularly suburban municipalities) need to update their official plans to allow for more walkable and transit-friendly suburbs. While having the features of new urbanism, it has to be well-connected to existing urban nodes (such as downtown) via mass transit to really be successful. Turning shopping centres and collectors into mixed-use streets would be a start. Turning office parks into mini-CBDs is also something we need to start doing. Instead of having a "dead-worm" street pattern, we need to have a grid system. I have yet to hear from anyone in suburbia that their attraction to it is the shopping centres, loopy streets, office parks, and collector roads. If we look to our older neighborhoods and streetcar suburbs, we can see that they still make single-detached home ownership and walkability possible at the same time.

[DrewDizzle]

Thing is, it wont change "suddenly". As far as peak oil is concerned, we have just recently turned the peak. Prices will rise gradually. We are already seeing the effects of that now, but it will continue to get much worse over time. Instead of gritting our teeth and bitching about the greed of oil companies, it's time to start taking incremental steps in transit improvements to solve this problem. After all, we all played some role in creating the mess we're in.

Depends on who you ask; the oil scientists will tell you we may not peak for several more decades. We can't wait that long; cities need to get involved now and start making driving and parking in dense areas (i.e. downtowns) less affordable. If people have to ride the bus, maybe they'll be more inclined to move CLOSER.

[Policy Wonk]

The problem with peak oil is not that the science behind it is flawed - within the specific confines of the theory as it was presented in the early 70's by Hubbert the conclusion fits the data.

The problem is that vast conculsions are being presented based on data from the sixties, there are massive reserves that are not accounted for in the theory.

---
Simply making driving more expensive will not get people on the bus.

The problem with attracting additional transit users is that the LAST thing most people will give up in circumstances of financial hardship is driving. They will crash on their brothers couch before they will give up their car. People will make significant sacrafices to continue driving - look at the high school students who pour every penny they get into their car for instance.

[DrewDizzle]

The problem with attracting additional transit users is that the LAST thing most people will give up in circumstances of financial hardship is driving. They will crash on their brothers couch before they will give up their car. People will make significant sacrafices to continue driving - look at the high school students who pour every penny they get into their car for instance.

I wouldn't use the pragmatism-free high school student as an example for sacrifices made for driving. That's like saying 21-year olds would rather go homeless than give up drinking alcohol. :koko:

I think the pocketbook/wallet is the only way to hit commuters.

[Policy Wonk]

It isn't just a high school student - but the point is it is very difficult to price people out of their cars when people will accept a marginal housing situation before giving up personal transportation.

[DrewDizzle]

It isn't just a high school student - but the point is it is very difficult to price people out of their cars when people will accept a marginal housing situation before giving up personal transportation.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I don't deny the folks your'e describing are out there but I think a hit to the wallet is the best way to influence choice commuters. I know a lot of folks in Austin that are moving in from the 'burbs because they're tried of driving, tired of gas prices, and would rather be able to walk, take the bus, etc. Hopefully the trend will continue.

[pdxtex]

its hard to tell at what price point people will be driving less. even at 3 dollars a gallon, id say just from casual observation, the roads in portland do not seem any less packed. if anything, they seem more crowded then ever. conversely though, local stats show that max/bus ridership is higher then ever and nationaly of course, people have taken the first step in lessening their energy burden by purchasing less suv's. eh, its a start.

[miketoronto]

The thing is you have to make transit attractive for people to use it. Not force them onto service that sucks.

[Gordo]

The thing is you have to make transit attractive for people to use it. Not force them onto service that sucks.

Any place that has high transit usage uses a combination of attracting people and forcing people. Sometimes the "forcing" is through not-so-obvious things (restricting new parking garages, etc), and sometimes it's obvious (proposed congestion charges in NYC).

[DrewDizzle]

Any place that has high transit usage uses a combination of attracting people and forcing people. Sometimes the "forcing" is through not-so-obvious things (restricting new parking garages, etc), and sometimes it's obvious (proposed congestion charges in NYC).

re: MikeToronto

I think the idea is to force people to use EFFECTIVE mass transit systems, unlike the All Systems Go! plan being constructed in Austin, TX. Municipalities can make transit work, they just have to be a bit more dictatorial about than they're used to (provided they provide effective alternatives).

[J. Will]

It's pretty simple for the most part: provided good transit service ALL-DAY LONG, not just during peak hours. And no, some bus crawling through mixed traffic that runs once every 15-20 minutes is NOT good transit service. It's quite poor service. If people know that they will never have to wait more than 10 minutes (or better yet, more than 5 minutes) from early morning until at least 10pm they are much likely to use transit all the time, not just to work and back. And if the city's transit service consists of nothing but buses that share lanes with cars, it is even more important to have very frequent service as the ride itself is much slower than a subway.

Running only 3-4 buses an hour outside of peak times is not a good way to try to encourage people to use transit outside of work and sell their car.

[ikerrin]

Hi,

I think one thing holding wide-scale transit adoption is that North Americans need cars to get to so many destinations. Grocery shopping, holiday camping, the cottage, visits to family and friends out of town - they are all car dependent. Once you have invested the fixed cost of car ownership, additional variable costs for commuting to work are much smaller.

To really transition to a transit society you need good inter-city rail networks. As a thought experiment, imagine if you could hop on a train to Blue Mountain or Mount Tremblant for a weekend of skiing in the winter, or if you could catch a train to Wassaga beach in the summer. Imagine if a visit to your family or friends in Peterborough involved a subway trip to Union Station, a train to Peterborough and a short cab ride to their house.

I think its the absense of passenger trains that prevents higher transit usage.

[Smiley Person]

High gas prices will gain transit riders more commuters, but so far has had a minimal effect on non-commute transit riding. Of the people I know who have cars, when gas prices tripled in the last few years, they simply went out less often.

To attract the choice riders, transit needs to think the same way as car dealers. Take a look a typical car ad: price is only one of many selling points. Basically transit needs to be sexy.

[BorisMolotov]

A lot more people would ride Metra (and Amtrak, I guess) trains if they looked sleek, and futuristic, like high-speed trains, regardless of actual speed, and had interiors to match.

[Wright Concept]

Your views on this. Can you see transit ever becoming viable in many of our metro regions again, if we just rely on work commuters, for 9-5 commutes and then let the transit system become only for the poor in the off peak hours?

I think it can but the central focus in my mind is to cater towards the evening and Late night crowds, because jobs are moving away from the 9 to 5 work period. If the transit system still runs freqently and reliably during these periods even with a transfer you're more likely to get folks who would drive to avoid the hastle of driving and finding parking and spend more time enjoying their diversion/having fun.

[J. Will]

It's sad how many cities don't understand the importance of having FREQUENT service (10 minutes at the VERY most) on every major route from early morning until late night. People don't want to have to stand around waiting 15+ minutes for some bus because they just missed the last one, and they shouldn't have to.

A couple of years ago I was in a certain major metro area out west. In the middle of the day, I wanted to catch a bus from a dense urban area on the northern side of the downtown to another dense urban area a little northeast of downtown. I had to wait almost 20 minutes. I recently checked that city's transit website, and that route only runs once every 30 minutes for most of the day. This is a route that goes along a major road through and adjacent to some of the densest neighbourhoods in the city. And it's basically the only route that goes along the corridor that it travels. You can't just walk one block north or one block south and catch a more frequent route.

This kind of transit service is a total joke. What's worse is that the residents of this city think they have an excellent bus system. If you just barely miss this bus, it would be just as fast to walk this trip, even though it's a distance of well over a mile.

[DrewDizzle]

It's sad how many cities don't understand the importance of having FREQUENT service (10 minutes at the VERY most) on every major route from early morning until late night. People don't want to have to stand around waiting 15+ minutes for some bus because they just missed the last one, and they shouldn't have to.

A couple of years ago I was in a certain major metro area out west. In the middle of the day, I wanted to catch a bus from a dense urban area on the northern side of the downtown to another dense urban area a little northeast of downtown. I had to wait almost 20 minutes. I recently checked that city's transit website, and that route only runs once every 30 minutes for most of the day. This is a route that goes along a major road through and adjacent to some of the densest neighbourhoods in the city. And it's basically the only route that goes along the corridor that it travels. You can't just walk one block north or one block south and catch a more frequent route.

This kind of transit service is a total joke. What's worse is that the residents of this city think they have an excellent bus system. If you just barely miss this bus, it would be just as fast to walk this trip, even though it's a distance of well over a mile.

I can't speak for New York but I know that Washington DC's trains run every 10-20 minutes during late nights. Sometimes I'll be unfortunate to just miss one and have to wait the entire 20 minutes but what I've noticed is the platform will stay empty for the first 15 min and then, during the last 5, it will fill up with riders. I guess they just know the schedule and stay on top of it.

I do know that, after midnight, the bus I'd take right up D St. NE runs only once an hour. I don't see much reason to spend a ton of money running peak hour schedules during non-peak times unless it's a special occassion (holiday event, sporting event, concert, etc.)

[J. Will]

I don't see much reason to spend a ton of money running peak hour schedules during non-peak times unless it's a special occassion (holiday event, sporting event, concert, etc.)


It would be better for the riders, and would attract a lot more people. Far fewer people will ride a system if they have to memorize some service schedule than if it runs frequently outside peak hours.

For example the Bloor Street bus here in Toronto runs at 7-8 minute headways even at 2am. Because people know that they will never have to stand around waiting a long time no matter when they show up, they use public transit to go to nightclubs in large numbers. These buses get quite crowded even running at such high frequencies after 2am. It also helps to discourage drinking and driving without forcing people to pay high cab fares. It's a win-win situation all around.

Really, who wants to stand around waiting an hour for a late-night bus after they leave the bar because they just missed one? With that kind of service people are more likely to just drive, encouraging drinking and driving, and more parking than should be needed.

[WonderlandPark]

The cat is out of the bag. We have taken a direction in the US for the last 50-60 years of a suburban nation. For most cities, there is simply no cost effective way to get people around on transit. Yes, for certain corridors it will work, even in a place like Phoenix, but, being real, there is no way to make it time and cost effective to even serve half the commuting population in a multi-nodal city.

1-Where it works and is dense enough, LRT, Commuter Rail or BRT is great.
2-Cars, we have to tax or mandate smaller car usage. A single commuter in an SUV should be taxed to high hell, but single occupancy vehicles the size of a Smart Car can be tax-free. This allows highways to operate at higher capacity, shrinks the amount of space devoted to parking, and so on.
3-Freeing the asinine taxi systems that are found in this country. Taxis medallions should be cheap to free, making life for those without cars, and our aging population easy and affordable.
4-Congestion pricing, in some sort of manner, using funds to improve transit and highways-but make it easy to use, like London, pay after the fact, with your cell phone, whatever.

We aren't going to reinvent the wheel and nor should we. We built the majority of our cities for the car. ITS DONE. We have built trillions of dollars in homes, warehouses and office parks. That isn't going to go away soon. So, in most cases, if we can shrink the car and get rid of those emissions, than we can do a hell of a lot of good pretty quickly.

[ginsan2]

I can't speak for others, but I can definitely say that what stops me from using public trans (what very, very, very little there is in SE Michigan) is that my schedule demands a flexibility that isn't available on any bus schedule.

Sprawl has made public trans ineffective in a lot of ways. My college is here, where I work is thirty miles over there, a movie theatre is miles away from a good restaurant I want to go to, etc.

[M1EK]

The opposition many of the transit-dependent have to gearing services towards choice commuters is short-sighted; the healthiest transit networks in this country are those which middle-class voters actually use. If you focus your system too much towards people who can't drive (can't afford to or are ideologically anti-car) and do nothing to attract those who can afford to drive, you'll eventually suffer at the ballot box with lower funding.

LA's stupid bus riders' union shows this quite clearly: they jeopardize future bus funding by playing on fears that all the money is going to rail (in the long run, building rail which richer passengers actually use makes bus funding more, rather than less, secure; but they were played for fools by road-building interests).