I can't be scientific about it, but it seems to me this past summer there have been A LOT more people taking PACE buses and riding bicycles . . . half-full buses on midday midweeks as opposed to or three passengers . . . older folk (let's say 60-plus) riding "single gear" Schwinns that probably belonged to their children. I am talking about suburban routes, and the ones I travel most often would be Touhy or Golf Road.
Do you think my perception is correct? - a.s.
Spoke to my local Police Lieutenant and he said bicycle theft was up so you might be right about the 60 year olds riding them.
San Joaquin Regional Transit is reporting a 27% growth in ridership the last two months alone. So beginning next month the fares are being increased. Doesn't make any sense to me.
Al - in - Stockton
passengerfan wrote: Spoke to my local Police Lieutenant and he said bicycle theft was up so you might be right about the 60 year olds riding them. San Joaquin Regional Transit is reporting a 27% growth in ridership the last two months alone. So beginning next month the fares are being increased. Doesn't make any sense to me. Al - in - Stockton
I guess it's because urban mass transit in this country is money-losing almost by design (in terms of amounts of subsidies necessary to provide service, which is more than what goes into "the cashbox").
It does seem strange to me that Chicagoland's PACE runs busses every half hour on major routes and if we have a dozen people getting on at a stop instead of one, that's a difference of about ten dollars. And if people are riding their own bikes to an RT station, as the example you cited in California, isn't that a good thing? What would they be out, the money for more bicycle racks?? Or are the LRT's and such truly so packed at rush hours that more rolling stock must follow?
My hunch would be that PACE and other transit districts are being intellectually honest about it, and the call for more funds is necessary to put more vehicles on the road for rush hours.
Philcal wrote:Al, I'm a good ways from Chicago, but your information makes sense to me. You Guys are blessed with a pretty good public transit infrastructure, and I believe that's going to pay major dividends as the price of fuel keeps rising.
I absolutely agree with you; especially since the region ("Six-County Area") charges a little more for gasoline to pay a tax directly to the RTA (umbrella for CTA, PACE and Metra).
Pity that the extra gas tax is figured per gallon. If people actually start driving less, it's possible the tax revenue may go down or stagnate. (One of the many ironies of the recent boom in public-transit). This is just IMHO but if possible, I'd prefer that the RTA tax would be figured as a percent of sales. That would keep up with inflation.
Many economists have said it, but what's happening now by historical event is what they're been advocating: don't make public transit cheaper, make private auto more expensive! It isn't just the gas; in Illinois (and particularly Chicago) the licenses and fees are downright onerous; also (as they should) they're cracking down on people without insurance.
I don't pretend the way we tax public transit is "fair" in that it is in effect a transfer from working people with long commutes to white-collar and professional rail commuters and El riders (chiefly, though certainly not exclusively). Metra, I have been told, gets only about 35 percent of its revenues thru ticket sales (the "farebox" again), while NJT and other systems in the East are above sixty percent.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.