A fix for high prices: why not rail transit? Plenty of good reasons exist to ride the rails. The passenger's personal pocketbook may matter most

Railway Age, June, 2008 by Douglas John Bowen

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

Perhaps it's simply a matter of price. 'For decades, rail transit operators, promoters, and even users have wondered what the magic formula might be for increased ridership. Depending on their capital and/or operating budgets, established old-time transit agencies (such as New York's MTA) and newcomers alike (Charlotte Area Transit System) have tinkered with marketing involving speed, frequency, capacity, comfort, accessibility, and safety.

The cost to the transit rider mattered too, of course, as any transit agency requesting a fare increase knows all too well. All too often the visible cost of driving--mostly fuel consumption--appeared to undercut much of any financial advantage a transit customer might obtain.

"Drivers tend not to tally the costs of purchasing a car or the insurance involved," says George Haikalis, a New York-based transit consultant, "and those who do can justify those items as 'sunk costs'--they'd have to pay them anyway, whether they use rail transit or not."

The cost of gasoline, however, is highly visible, and its impact is more immediate. Just prior to the Memorial Day weekend last month, the nation's average cost of unleaded regular gasoline was just shy of $4.00. By contrast, New Jersey, due in part to its low state gas tax rate, averaged $3.59 for unleaded regular.

But even New Jersey's relatively "cheap" fuel may be high enough to spur more rail ridership. NJ Transit last month noted commuter rail ridership rose 5.3% for the first three months of 2008; light rail rose 9.8%. By contrast, NJT's bus ridership, with a higher number of riders, rose 1.8%. NJT representatives attributed the increases largely to the cost of fuel.

PATH spokesman Steve Coleman notes the Port Authority of New York & New Jersey's bi-state rail system also has benefited from "the rising cost of gasoline." Ridership for the first four months of 2008 is up 7.8% from the same period of a year ago. Some of that is due to New York's economic resilience, at least to date: "The economy in [metropolitan] New York is still doing well," Coleman notes. But PATH's weekend ridership has also increased during the comparable period, up 5.2% on Saturdays and up 12.1% on Sundays.

Further north in Boston, Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority officials assert that gas prices are directly responsible for ridership gains. General Manager Daniel A. Grabauskas acknowledges MBTA's effort to provide better service, but stated recently that "we are seeing gas prices drive up the ridership numbers here in Boston and in transit agencies across the country." The increases are led by light rail, up 5.6%. Commuter rail has nudged up 1% and bus transit has risen 4.8%.

Nationwide, Amtrak continued to show strength, with ridership up 11.5% systemwide in March versus the year-ago month. Amtrak short-distance routes logged a 16.5% gain in March compared with a year ago. The Northeast Corridor capitalized on fuel woes for both cars and airlines, with ridership up 7%. Long-distance trains gained 7.9%.

Striving to sustain rail ridership gains

For some, the surge in passenger rail ridership, though welcome, is a reward for--and the result of--efforts made over many years to prepare for such an increase. "From almost no rail 30 years ago, California has really risen," says Gene Skoropowski, managing director of California's Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority. Among others, Skoropowski credits California Proposition 116, a citizens initiative offered in 1990, "initially rejected by the political pros" but passed by the voters, providing $1 billion in capital funding for passenger rail improvements.

Skoropowski notes that 20% of all Amtrak ridership now occurs in California, and the Capitol Corridor, linking San Jose with Oakland, Sacramento, and Auburn, is now Amtrak's third-busiest route. Ridership on the Capitol Corridor rose 17% in 2007, and Skoropowski points out that some of the route's ridership could be classified as "commuter." He adds, "We instituted an early-morning frequency, departing Sacramento at 4:30 a.m., in part as an equipment move. It rapidly began to fill up" as early-morning travelers pounced on an alternative to the higher cost of driving.

Florida's Tri-Rail has experienced much the same thing. "Our April 2008 ridership is up 28% over the year-ago period," says Brad Barkman, director of operations for the South Florida Regional Transportation Authority (SFRTA). Ridership rose 10.2% in 2007, pacing the steady overall increase in gasoline prices, though Barkman adds, "We haven't seen a decline in riders when gas prices fluctuate."

Much like the Capitol Corridor, SFRTA has worked to prepare for ridership increases, following capital investment that provided double-tracking most of the Miami-to-Mangonia Park, Fla. (north of West Palm Beach), and thus allowing increased rail frequencies.

Barkman says "quite a few of our rush-hour trains are 'standing-room only,'" but like other rail transit representatives stresses that the increases come from a broad ridership base, not just traditional commuters. "In June 2006, we started some 20- or 30-minute frequencies, and we included a midnight employees train. We picked up ridership. Our first trains leave at 4:00 a.m., and people are riding. The work pattern here is so diverse that we're trying to hit a wide range of target markets." Price is a factor, he notes. "Our gas prices are among the highest, and our fares are among the lowest" of U.S. transit agencies, Barkman says.