Americans Drive 10 BILLION miles less May 08 than May 07

[confused04 14]

The US Department of Transportation just released its report stating that Americans have driven 9.6 billion miles less this May over May 2007. This marks the 7th month in a row of decreasing miles driven. Since November 2007, Americans have driven 40.5 BILLION (holy cow) miles less than the same period a year earlier (November 2006 to May 2007).

Article here

I also read that mass transit ridership numbers have been increasing around 10% nationally with some lines citing nearly 25% increases. This has lead many cities, such as my own Minneapolis, to adopt mass transit policies that are just astounding. Cities that were once reluctant to build one line due to "economic infeasibility" are now trumpeting their plans as buses become crammed. Minneapolis-St. Paul Metro Transit stated that park and rides are above capacity resulting in parking lot rage and illegal parking as well as turning away potential riders because mass transit has become so popular. Unfortunately, the passion for mass transit also takes a toll on ... tolls and taxes. With more people taking mass transit, that means fewer people are purchasing gas (imagine how much 40.5 billion miles would translate into less gas tax revenue). This ironically hurts many mass transit systems. Additionally, this puts a financial strain on the federal government's program for providing mass transit funds to projects that are economically feasible. Now that ridership numbers are up, some projects have suddenly become feasible in just one year. One line alone connecting Minneapolis-St.Paul obtained over $450 million. Makes you wonder how competitive funds will be in the coming years. To make matters worse, most states, particularly those who have been hit hard by the housing crisis will see MONSTROUS budget shortfalls (California is short $15 Billion dollars). A loss in gas tax revenue will further fuel budget problems in many places.

Minneapolis has begun exploring 30 plus mass transit lines for future development between now and 2030 (not half bad). I say 30 "plus" because Metro Transit apparently doesn't have any authority over streetcars that the city of Minneapolis wishes to include within its own boundaries (at the sobering coast of 25 million per mile). Many cities are choosing to wait til the US census is conducted in 2010 for accurate population estimates (unless you live in those cities that chronically challenge their census estimates). Next year the Northstar Line will be completed and within the next few years construction will begin on the Central Corridor light rail as well as numerous BRT lines. Depending on the success of the Northstar Line, ridership models might be adjusted to make even more lines "feasible". Two other lines are in the pipeline (Environmental impact statements completed, possible alignment studies, etc).

Have you noticed mass transit ridership increasing and has your city seen similar gains in mass transit ridership? Have YOU taken mass transit more now that gas prices are higher. Additionally, are your respective cities upping their plans for new mass transit opportunities.

[un1 41]

Hmm, I guess rising gas prices are lowering the ridership in the US. I live in Canada and I know that most of the smog in Southern Ontario is caused by Ohio. It's great to see that Americans are riding less and are starting to use Mass-Transit to save money. There also saving the enviroment by riding less. Still there travels per month is still high but it's getting there. (There si low ridership.)

-un1

[Follarch 327]

I have seen that Seattle, Washington has proposed an expansion plan for its monorail line going from the Spaceneedle to Downtown. (currently one line but numerous more has been proposed) However this was proposed before the gas prices began to soar, so maybe this will prompt the City Council or state to build the new lines faster.

[Deathtoall 28]

I can agree with you Confused but not in relation to the US. Down here in Australia, in Sydney to be exact.

The outer suburbs built on freeways with many transit options are under increasing pressure from risings interest rates and petrol prices and are going in droves to what little Public Transport there is after 20 years of neglect by the state. Our railway lines operate at nearly 150% capacity. All of them are overcrowded and coupled with services running late is frustrating commuters. The Government is now looking at building a system of metro lines and of course being in opposition territory we get empty promises and little funding when if they want to take serious pressure of the Harbour Bridge and tunnel a rail link is a must. But then the government loves getting toll rods becuase it has little outlay for them. WE used to have a massive tram network, with year ridership of over 400million in a city that was around 1.5to 2million people, you do the maths! So i quess that now people realise the car age is over and it's back to rail and public transport and time to curb the burbs!

[Hahayoudied 3]

Too bad the city I live in isn't going to expand or build new mass transit systems, only sticking with cars (there are already major traffic jams close to the downtown are and a main avenue that connects the suburb to the highway and downtown area), and a crappy bus system (I rarely see any bus stop signs or buses in my city).

[irdesi 0]

I haven't seen much change in Boston because the city is already highly transit oriented. The problem right now across Boston's entire CR and subway network is a lack of capacity. CR trains have always run with every seat taken during rush hour (both directions at each time - Boston has a very high proportion of reverse commuting), but there is still some standing room left even without adding extra cars. The problem is that all the park-and-rides are overflowing, as demonstrated by the fact that the station near me with about 300 spaces fills up by the 7:10am train, after which it is impossible to find a space, even though the trains with the most load would run around 8am. Talk about missed opportunities. Even the Alewife garage at the north end of the Red Line subway and with thousands of spaces fills up by about 8am. We need a serious influx of parking garages all across the system. Even then, the MBTA fleet is aging and facing numerous repair issues, sometimes rendering many tens of cars inoperable, despite the fact that more are needed even if all the current cars were operational. On the plus side, the MBTA did just open a new commuter rail line to the South Shore with much fanfare. Too bad that only put more pressure on the equipment shortage...Ugh...

[un1 41]

Even Thunder Bay, Ontario is starting to expand their bus service. If only they kept the street cars, then they would have another thing to expand on. As for ong distance... They're trying to get VIA Rail back to Thunder Bay due to the amount of people who travel to Toronto every week. But VIA doesn't wan't to do it. So traffic congestion on Memorial Ave, Red River Rd, Thunder Bay Expressway and Harbour Expressway will remain congested for a while.

[Sim shady 12]

It is great that drivers are finally starting to put up the keys in favor of mass transit. However, I find it very disapointing that it has taken rising gas prices to fuel this shift. America's suburbia can not be a permanant way of life; it is just not sustainable with our vast consumption of natural, nonrenewable resources. Unfortunately, we turn a blind eye and continue living our lives.

It was innevitable that gas prices would rise. Look at Europe, they have been in the 9$ range for how long now? Meanwhile America has built an economy on low gas prices. From shipping food in trucks to driving to the supermarkets we rely on cheap gas to keep prices low. Back to suburbia, imagine gas prices rendering your car worthless and food becoming far more expensive. Where will you get your food? The trucks always brought it to you. Will you grow your own? On your half acre plot...good luck supporting your family.

I could write a long essay on this with a lot of passion in it At least we are starting to cut our driving down...or is it just another phase/ fad, like how last year everything was about the War in Iraq and the surge, and the year before- in Texas- you had the coal plant contreversy which you would never hear about now despite the expansion plan being continued. Hopefully people realize what is going on and that this is no fad, high gas prices are here to stay.

[zane900 1]

Imagine what's going through the heads of those Honda shareholders...

[Hahayoudied 3]

I think many car companies would try to keep people from switching to mass transit, those car companies are going to have to produce SUPER low gas usage cars to continue to make money...

[Duke87 1,070]

I guess I should also point out that you simply cannot get your hands on a Toyota Prius nowadays. There's a waiting list over a year long for them. Toyota can't make the batteries for them fast enough to meet the demand, as the resources aren't there. And you do see an awful lot of those cars on the streets.  There's also a noticeable rise in people driving motorcycles or mopeds instead of cars. And you know what else is a ridiculously common sight? An SUV or a picup truck parked with a "for sale" sign on it. Everyone's getting rid of them. And nobody's buying them. So if you have one, forget about selling it, it ain't hapenning. You couldn't pay someone to take it off your hands. You might as well fill it with dirt and grow flowers in it at this point.

And yet, as of right now, gas prices are actually starting to drop. It won't ever be $1.50 a gallon again like it was ten years ago, but it will drop below the $4.00 mark soon and it's not unreasonable to expect that it may be back at $3.00 in a few months. The reason? The price of oil has been driven up a lot over the past year or so by speculation. So gas prices have been artificially inflated quite a bit. And now the bubble is starting to burst, and the prices are slowly falling back out of the sky and down to Earth.

[confused04 14]

Speculation is just a small (but none the less significant) part of the reason why gas prices have dropped. This drop in demand has led to a higher supply of gasoline as well. The dollar has had a slight (but modest) recovery which also helps in in the pricing of gas (both here and abroad in a rather backwards mechanism). As the dollar devalued against most major currencies, it allowed the prices of gas to be relatively cheaper than it should have been in Europe despite high demand in China in India. Since gasoline is exclusively priced by the dollar, a dip in the dollar allows other major currencies to buy gas for cheap. The upturn in prices hit the US FIRST even though it doesn't appear like it when you see gas prices in Europe (but thats mostly do to high taxing and less on supply/demand/economics). But within the last year (particularly in the last 6 months), the dollar has leveled off \ no longer concealing the higher demand in gas from developing countries in European markets. A lot of pricing is merely psychology. "Whats Iran doing?" "The Hurricane forecasters said an active season!!" which plays amongst the biggest roles in determining the price per barrel. Prices can actually be followed within minutes of world leaders opening their mouths.

It only takes one well placed hurricane or a certain administration to open their mouth to send the prices back up. If a Hurricane Rita or Katrina hit the Gulf, $5 a gallon is not out of the question. (Some analysts said $6, but that was when gas was $147 per barrel, so I assume they'd back off that number).

Some POLITICAL analysts, and I capitalized political just so that you don't take their thoughts too seriously if at all, say that once Bush leaves office, particularly in an Obama win, the dollar will recover modestly (again, politics plays a lot into currency markets). Now, what does this mean.... Sorry Europe, you're the one that gets hit with gas prices as the dollar recovers. If the price remains at $125 and the dollar goes from a conversion of $1.58 per euro to just $1.30, instead of being 79.11 Euros per barrel, it'll jump to 96 Euros per barrel. The price of gas in Europe might not have topped out yet so many of the gas protests you seen may just be the beginning... Ironically, if the political analysts are right, the US candidate of choice for Europeans (by a 5 to 1 margin), Obama, might be the thing that can hurt European wallets the most. Gas markets are dizzying :\

[toxicpiano 125]

Originally posted by: Archean I have seen that Seattle, Washington has proposed an expansion plan for its monorail line going from the Spaceneedle to Downtown. (currently one line but numerous more has been proposed) However this was proposed before the gas prices began to soar, so maybe this will prompt the City Council or state to build the new lines faster.quote>

That monorail is so pointless, I swear it only goes 10 blocks. They were talking about extending it like the skytrain (which is the best thing ever except london underground) in Vancouver when I was there (2005).

[Hahayoudied 3]

I have just seen a S.U.V being advertised as "low gas usage S.U.V.". I doubt anyone is going to buy "low gas usage" S.U.Vs, except for snobs who doesn't care about how much money they spend.

Plus, there are still some people still using S.U.Vs because they are stuck with the S.U.V lease, and the car companies aren't going to let go of the S.U.Vs leases until the leases expire, but by that time, their poor customers'  cash would be sucked dry...

[confused04 14]

A news story came out today showing that the dip in driving has lead to a dramatic loss of funds in just Minnesota alone.

The State estimates it will lose $180 to $250 million dollars in federal funding from the loss of revenue from federal gas taxes.

Additionally, take a look at this opinion piece from Newsweek

In summation: The government heavily subsidizes infrastructure for vehicles and despite increased ridership, conservatives decry the use of federal funds for mass transit. The author basically says that highways and roads are the result of federal subsidizing that the conservatives decry. Additionally, he points out that privatization has not picked up and doesn't work on highways so why do conservatives fight mass transit. Bush also has removed some money from mass transit to go back into highways because revenue is down. I.e. since more people took mass transit and less money went to gas taxes, the shortfall must be made up using mass transit funds... HUH?

[Stormblades 0]

Originally posted by: toxicpiano

Originally posted by: Archean I have seen that Seattle, Washington has proposed an expansion plan for its monorail line going from the Spaceneedle to Downtown. (currently one line but numerous more has been proposed) However this was proposed before the gas prices began to soar, so maybe this will prompt the City Council or state to build the new lines faster.quote>

That monorail is so pointless, I swear it only goes 10 blocks. They were talking about extending it like the skytrain (which is the best thing ever except london underground) in Vancouver when I was there (2005).quote>

Yep, they`re doing that now. It`s expected to be complete in Nov. 2009. (The Skytrain extension)

[SimRabbit 48]

Why would I ride an overcrowded subway? No way!!

I hope the gas prices come down and get things back to normal.

[Rymac91 15]

I've done a bit of number crunching on this, and from the USDoT & FHA Statistical information on registered drivers(and this information is quite outdated so it doesn't work very well).

There were 199 million registered drivers in 2004 and 237 million registered motor vehicles. If the Drivers were to drive 40.5 billion less miles as a whole, that would equate to each driver driving 203 less miles a year. And to put that into perspective how small that is individually, if you have a vehicle that gets 25mpg and the tank holds 15gal of gas, that car can go a max. of 375 miles on a single tank, which is 172 miles less then the average.

Now this doesn't put the cars into consideration, but this leads me to think that more people are "carpooling" instead of individually driving themselves when they don't have to.

[hym 358]

So if we take that 10 billion, divide it by an assumed 200 million drivers (we know it's gone up since 2004) in May, that means everyone reduced their monthly driving by all of 50 miles, or approximately 1.6 miles per day. (2.6 km for metric folk)

[Joesocwork 4]

Last year, WMATA (Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority -Metro) offered temporary financial incentives for commuters who drove over a certain bridge to use their system for a couple of months while the bridge and surrounding highway went through reconstruction. I took them up on it and have been riding on the Metro ever since. It's not the most convenient. The closest bus stops to me are over a mile away. The parking lots can be expensive and out of the way too. It has certainly gotten much more crowded over the year and the fares continue to go up as well. But I do appreciate it over the headaches of the commute by car and I appreciate the saving of wear and tear on the car. I probably won't go back unless my job goes where it's not Metro accessible or WMATA makes poor decisions that would make it less economical.

[cheese91 9]

Originally posted by: Duke87 And you know what else is a ridiculously common sight? An SUV or a picup truck parked with a "for sale" sign on it. Everyone's getting rid of them. And nobody's buying them. So if you have one, forget about selling it, it ain't hapenning. You couldn't pay someone to take it off your hands. You might as well fill it with dirt and grow flowers in it at this point. quote>

Ah, I've noticed this as well. But I've also seen that it isn't just SUV's and pick-up trucks that are going for sale, it's regular small cars too. Everywhere I look, it seems like some sort of automobile is for sale in someone's front lawn. And yes, you're right, the vehicles,mainly the larger ones, just end up sitting there for months and months since no one wants to buy a gas-guzzler.

And yet, as of right now, gas prices are actually starting to drop. It won't ever be $1.50 a gallon again like it was ten years ago, but it will drop below the $4.00 mark soon and it's not unreasonable to expect that it may be back at $3.00 in a few months.quote>

I know, it's great to actually see regular gas for $3.97 rather than the $4.49 it was at a few weeks ago. (It's sad that $3.97 gets me excited ).

[confused04 14]

Yes the math calculations put the estimate at around a decrease of 50 miles per person for the month of May. That might seem small and insignificant, but there's two ways to look at it.

A) Think of the miles as trips. For me, this would be over 10 separate trips to the grocery store. Thats a huge reduction for me. In the grand scheme of things, 50 is a small number especially if your a suburbanite. I live in the city and I rarely have to go further than ten miles for anything. Its a small but obviously significant drop in driving. Besides... imagine all the people who physically can't drop the number of miles they drive due to business or commute who would like to drop. I think the 10 billion mile drop has less to do with carpooling and more with people combining trips. Instead of doing errands throughout the week, I imagine many people combine all their trips to reduce redundant driving. I imagine carpooling is up, HOV lanes seem pretty full to me these days.

B) Its not an increase. Having a decrease AT ALL is an amazing thing since our driving population is continuously rising every month and every new driver can easily outdo any reductions five people make. A meager 1 million new drivers (I'm pulling this one out of thin air) who drive a 100 miles per month (HA! doubt it) could easily outdo the savings of 2 million people making it hard for the overall population to even drop the total number of miles at all. The US has always seen a large increase in driving mileage every month until recently.

Ditto on the for sale signs. Seen them everywhere and they aren't going anywhere. Driving by the dealerships, its just filled with signs about high gas mileage (40 mpg! 25 mpg! 35 mpg!) as opposed to horsepower or price.

[Hahayoudied 3]

Oh yeah, why doesn't the U.S. government tax mass transit instead of gas to earn money?

[confused04 14]

Originally posted by: Hahayoudied Oh yeah, why doesn't the U.S. government tax mass transit instead of gas to earn money?quote>

They do... its called a transit fare.

Local governments can't tax because... well, they own it.

If you mean why doesn't the Federal government tax mass transit, the can't. Otherwise they'd be taxing themselves and the federal government can't tax local governments.

Additionally, taxing mass transit is just stupid. You want to encourage mass transit to reduce infrastructure wear and tear and congestion. Promoting cars is very inefficient, especially when land becomes a premium. When cities increase in size, land downtown proportionally becomes more expensive so the return on parking lots decreases. Another thing that many people don't take into account are costs that don't have a dollar amount like "land opportunity costs". Once you build a highway, you can't use that land for anything else like development so unless you wanna have one large asphalt county, you need to use highways as little as possible as highways generally don't have a good return on investment ON THEIR OWN*. Highways do help if there's land to develop, but if you continue to keep building highways, you have less and less land for more practical purposes. Mass transit is something you want to encourage, not tax.

[saltandsauce 0]

Originally posted by: Duke87 I guess I should also point out that you simply cannot get your hands on a Toyota Prius nowadays. There's a waiting list over a year long for them. Toyota can't make the batteries for them fast enough to meet the demand, as the resources aren't there. And you do see an awful lot of those cars on the streets.  There's also a noticeable rise in people driving motorcycles or mopeds instead of cars. And you know what else is a ridiculously common sight? An SUV or a picup truck parked with a "for sale" sign on it. Everyone's getting rid of them. And nobody's buying them. So if you have one, forget about selling it, it ain't hapenning. You couldn't pay someone to take it off your hands. You might as well fill it with dirt and grow flowers in it at this point. quote>

you could extend it into a stretch and put the ceiling up a bit and put some more seats in it and you have a bus, or you could just get it melted down at a scrapyard

what is surprising me is that no private companies have built railways and public transport in a long while

[hym 358]

Originally posted by: saltandsauce

what is surprising me is that no private companies have built railways and public transport in a long whilequote>

Europeans might find mass transit to be a nice thing, but US opinions tend to be much, much less favorable.  Look at passenger rail, something that is fairly dominant in Europe.  Amtrak is considered the main passenger rail service in the US, and its service coverage area looks like this.  Now lets say that I want to go from Houston, Texas to St. Louis, Missouri, and I'd like to leave around Nov. 7th.  According to Amtrak, I could pay $88 to take a bus from Houston, Texas to Longview, Texas, and then from there, take a train from Longview to St. Louis, Missouri.  I would leave Houston at 1PM on Nov. 7th, and would arrive in St. Louis at 7:40AM Nov. 8th.  That is a little under 19 hours to make a trip that I know from past experience can be made in 16 hours by car (even less time if you don't count the time spent from eating, restroom breaks, and getting out of the car to stretch).  Now, lets look at passenger rail's chief competitor, the airline companies.  Say I want to travel by Southwest Airlines, and I want to leave on Nov. 7th.  I can purchase a ticket for $121, leave at 7AM and arrive in St. Louis at just before 9PM.  I don't know about other people, but I'd pay the extra $40 to cut 17 hours off of the trip time.

[hamsterTK 93]

Amtrak is a dinosaur. Flying is the way to go cross-country.

A long time ago in Europe they realized that passenger rail in general works best at high speeds between certain kinds of distances. Specifically, distances between 100 and 400 miles at speeds that are similiar or exceed auto travel time. If your destination is close to an intermediate station then it is equal or faster than flying when you account for getting to and from the airport.

Essentially a replacement for short-haul flights and a way to link regional destinations to increase travel and business. IE you could go to the beach on a summer afternoon like this and get home the same day. Also it could connect airports and replace puddle-jumper trips that aren't profitable to the airlines.

To me it's a good idea, mainly because while you can run a car on electricity, jet engines don't lend themselves so well to that. Flying might be harder as oil runs out. Nationwide it's unfeasible but  I would say California, Texas, and the Northeast have the population corridors and a use for something like this.

Another interesting thing shown by high speed trains is that while their infrastructure must be subsidized(but then everything else from highways to airports are too) the operations can break even from fares and run as a private business.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: Hahayoudied Oh yeah, why doesn't the U.S. government tax mass transit instead of gas to earn money?quote>

Well, for one thing, exactly the opposite is always occurring. The feds as well as state governments subsidize mass transit. And the money for that subsidy often comes from taxes on gas and other such things like motor oil. So, it's a nasty situation. People driving less and using more mass transit means that there is less tax being collected but at the same time more demand for the money from that tax.

Still, it's not like governments can't get that money from elsewhere. Problem is, they won't, since that requires that they stop wasting money on pointless porkbarrel projects or on doing things which are meaningless in a practical sense but will help their perpetrators get re-elected.

Originally posted by: saltandsauce

what is surprising me is that no private companies have built railways and public transport in a long whilequote>

It's not surprising at all, actually. The reason no private company is going to do that is because it's economically unfeasible. Even if you're not building anything, it costs more money to run and maintain a railroad than you could reasonably expect to bring in in revenue from running it. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey operates the PATH rail/subway service. Riding it isn't free, there is a reasonable fare, but it still operates at a net loss of a few hundred million dollars a year- and it's a fairly small system.

Point being, if there weren't any public mass transit systems, there wouldn't be any mass transit systems period. You can't turn a profit from it, so you can't make a business out of it.

[Psycho_Teddy 25]

Ah free market capitalism.... Gouging prices for gasoline and then wondering why business is going down... I thought their reasoning for $4.00+ per gallon gas was to "curtail demand"? Isn't this what they said at the beginning? It seems they had other motives, now that they're complaining about their loss of business.

[confused04 14]

Originally posted by: Duke87

It's not surprising at all, actually. The reason no private company is going to do that is because it's economically unfeasible. Even if you're not building anything, it costs more money to run and maintain a railroad than you could reasonably expect to bring in in revenue from running it. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey operates the PATH rail/subway service. Riding it isn't free, there is a reasonable fare, but it still operates at a net loss of a few hundred million dollars a year- and it's a fairly small system.

Point being, if there weren't any public mass transit systems, there wouldn't be any mass transit systems period. You can't turn a profit from it, so you can't make a business out of it.quote>

That doesn't even apply strictly to mass transit but to transportation in general. ALL forms of transportation rely heavily on subsidizing.

The US spends far more money on building and maintaining the interstate highway system than any mass transit system and can expect very little direct return from these highways. No private entity has attempted to build roads or highways on a large scale because it too is economically impossible without government handouts. The I-35 W bridge ALONE, about 2,000 feet long and not remarkably high cost 300 million dollars. Why some politicians say mass transit is a money pit and then they approve $100 billion dollar highway budget plans is beyond me.

The Airline industry and shipping industry also rely on government subsidies. They surely didn't pay for the construction of all these airports. None of them bought the land and spent billions PER major airport. This relied on subsidies.

There is no mode of transportation that exists that doesn't require subsidy. Its infrastructure. It needs money. Its not just railway companies and mass transit, but they for some reason get the greatest resistance DESPITE having the smaller budget. Now you can argue that a mile of highway is cheaper than a mile of light rail. But I would think that unless tolls are dramatically increased that mass transit fares make up for the cost far faster than highways, if highways even do. Since many highways lack tolls, their only income comes from a tax (federal subsidy) so they NEVER even ATTEMPT to pay for themselves. Now I would never advocate doing away with highways, they are a necessity and are pleasant to drive on. I like them like the next guy, but I think that mass transit opponents need to wake up and stop using this tiresome argument (btw, I'm not addressing this to you Duke, I'm just going on a side rant).

I don't mind people advocating building new highways, their point of view. But they shouldn't claim "economically unfeasible" ever.