Providing more evidence that economists are right when they say “price matters,” high gasoline costs are doing what billions of infrastructure investments and millions in advertising couldn’t accomplish: encouraging a significant percentage of Americans to think about whether they can make their commute using mass transit. San Diegans looking closer at these options will find that our region’s transit system does some things relatively well and will also find areas where there are room for improvement. With the United States likely to face continued high energy costs, there is no time like the present for the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), the Metropolitan Transit System (MTS) and the North County Transit District (NCTD) to step back and re-examine certain elements of our region’s public transit plans.
Any discussion needs to start by acknowledging that MTS’s operation of buses is relatively quite efficient. In 2006, the operating expenses of MTS per passenger trip totaled $2.94. In contrast, the average operating expense per passenger trip for seven other transit systems serving urban areas in California and Arizona (Santa Clara County, Alameda County, Orange County, Sacramento, San Francisco, Los Angeles and Phoenix) was $3.33. The Allegheny Institute for Public Policy found that the average cost per passenger trip for 20 large urban systems was $3.22. While NCTD had a somewhat higher-than-average cost per passenger trip ($4.04), that can be explained by the agency’s large size and the suburban nature of the district. Indeed, NCTD can point with pride to the fact it had the second lowest operating expense per vehicle revenue mile when compared to systems serving West Coast cities and its relatively high (25%) rate of farebox recovery.
Overall, the data available at the National Transit Database (http://www.ntdprogram.gov) suggests that the system is built in an efficient way. What is critical is to make sure it is also effective.
Achieving that goal probably requires at the very least, a fresh look at the plans adopted before the rapid rise in energy costs. Over the past decade, the underlying assumption of regional planners and policy makers has been that getting more commuters to use public transit required a focus on convenience, speed, and comfort. Acting on these ideas, officials in the next few years will build several miles of transit and carpool-only lanes, provide real time information at upgraded bus stations about when the next vehicle will arrive, and purchase advanced vehicles that run on tires but have the look and feel of a trolley.
This strategy makes sense when gas was cheap and when mass transit fares were either equal or a bit more than the cost of the gas consumed during most commutes. Since there was little difference in price, the commuter would be attracted to transit by the amenities and the opportunity to have someone else fight traffic.
With the cost of a barrel of oil at $140, the situation has fundamentally changed. With a round trip commute from Escondido to Mission Valley easily costing $10 or more in gas, mass transit use can be a way of stretching one’s budget. One-way fares of even $4 seem like a bargain. Such a situation calls for planners and policy makers to ask questions such as whether it is necessary to add to the amenities in the vehicles and stations to attract riders? If commuters are saving up to $100 a month by using public transit, do they really need to be riding in a vehicle that looks like a train? Could capital slotted for real time information or futuristic vehicles be better expended on adding to frequency of service and to more convenient direct link park-and-rides to employment centers?
The lack of connections and slow speed is, as those familiar with the region’s public transit system, the principal obstacle for most commuters. Other than trips to downtown San Diego, it still takes far too long to get from even park-and-ride centers near freeways to the vast majority of job centers. The SANDAG-sponsored trip planner at www.sdcommute.com shows that it would take over one hour from a park and ride in Rancho Bernardo immediately adjacent to I-15 to the heart of Mission Valley and over 100 minutes to offices in UTC. That is just too long to when the auto can make the trip, even at rush hour, in less than 25 minutes. Even when fares costing $3.50 and a gallon of gas $5.00, for most harried commuters the cost savings are outweighed by the extra time and inconvenience.
Most economists suggest we are facing an extended period of high energy costs. Some are predicting that with global demand on the rise, energy prices can only go up. To serve the taxpaying public, the region’s transit agencies need to pay more attention to offering convenient connections to employment centers and worry a bit less about upgrading stations and making vehicles look sleek and sexy. The standard bus, if it gets people to their destination in a reasonable amount of time, is the right option and can help consumers who are paying $100 or more to fill up their tanks.
Reader Feedback
There are no comments yet for this article. Be the first to post!
Post a Comment
Feedback Rules:
Users may post more than one comment, but should not pose as multiple users. Multiple posts from the same IP address but with a different user name on each will be reviewed to determine whether abuse has occurred.
Posts with personal attacks or unsubstantiated allegations may be edited or deleted.
If you have not posted before, you will be required to verify your email address before your post is displayed.
