Use of mass transit spiked in 2012
By McClatchy Newspapers
Published: Monday, March 11, 2013, 6:45 p.m.
WASHINGTON — Mass transit ridership increased nationwide last year, according to numbers released on Monday, an indication that more people are going back to work and high gasoline prices are changing how they get there.
However, a closer look at the American Public Transportation Association's ridership report reveals that while many transit systems posted large gains, others experienced a decline, reflecting the unevenness of the economic recovery. And declines in the state, local and federal tax revenues that support transit systems have forced many to cut back service.
“Just like everybody else that saw the impacts of the recession, we did, too,” said Lars Erickson, a spokesman for Pierce Transit in Tacoma, Wash.
Nationally, transit systems recorded 10.5 billion trips last year, the second-highest level since 1957. The numbers would have been even higher if not for Superstorm Sandy, which crippled transit systems throughout the Northeast in late October.
About 60 percent of transit trips are to and from work, according to the public transportation association, and volatile gasoline prices have driven many commuters to seek alternatives to driving a personal vehicle.
“People have found transit to be a good value,” said Michael Melaniphy, president and chief executive of the public transportation association.
An improving economy has brought riders back, but transit systems face funding constraints.
“If they want increased service, we're going to have to increase revenue to support that,” said Mike Wiley, general manager of the Sacramento Regional Transit District in California.
At the federal level, transit funding depends on gasoline tax receipts, which have declined in recent years. At the state and local level, funding comes from a variety of sources, including sales and property taxes. When the economy turned sour, consumers cut back spending and home prices plummeted, hammering those two main sources of transit revenue.
With revenue down, systems had to cut service. Sacramento eliminated some bus routes and light rail service on nights and weekends. The reduced service led to reduced ridership, compounded by weekly furloughs of state government workers, who ride mass transit in large numbers.
Increasingly, state and local governments are asking voters to approve new transit revenue at the ballot box. The failure of such measures last year in Atlanta and Los Angeles grabbed a lot of attention, but voters approved 49 of the 62 transit ballot measures nationwide last year, Melaniphy said.
“We hear no one will pay more taxes for transportation,” he said. “In the toughest economic times in our lifetime, the voters are trusting their transit systems.”
But not everywhere. Efforts to fund transit service through sales tax increases have struggled in Tacoma, and decreased revenue has led to deep service cuts and fare increases, the combination of which produces lower ridership.
Voters have twice rejected a sales tax increase from 9.5 percent to 9.8 percent to fund Pierce Transit. Washington state has no income tax, and its sales taxes are higher than those of most states. Erickson said that was a challenge.
“It's not that people don't want public transportation, they just don't like sales taxes,” he said.
Sacramento's Wiley said his agency was considering asking voters to approve a sales tax increase in November 2014 to fund transit improvements. Such measures require a two-thirds majority in California, and a poll last year found 63 percent approval for such a measure.
“I think we will be able to get there,” Wiley said.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Satanists want to build monument
- Florida congressman loses $18M in stock scheme
- Air pollution measures due in court
- 8 techie companies unite, seek curbs on snooping
- 18 L.A. sheriff’s deputies draw federal charges
- Veteran held in North Korea says statement was coerced
- Budget deal possible on Tuesday, aides say
- Government sells remaining stake in GM
- Congress renews undetectable gun ban for decade
- Iranian foreign minister says nuke deal dead if new sanctions imposed
- Feds curtail paper applications for health care law