Transit Memory
Posted by Fred Jandt
Editor, Mass Transit magazine
Memory is a funny thing. There’s sensory memory — think visual recognition — short-term memory, which lets you remember where you just put your keys, and long-term memory, which allows many of us to store away wonderfully useless bits of information for our entire lives. Then there is transit memory, which is the ability to remember to use transit only when gas prices double from a set amount we’ve been conditioned to accept as okay.
My sister-in-law was all excited last week when gas prices dropped below $2/gallon. OK, I know I am not that old, but I remember when gas was a lot lower than $2. I remember thinking when gas hit $1.50/gallon that we’d never see the downside of that again, same thing at $2. And while gas prices are currently a little below $2, I don’t expect them to drop to $1.75 or lower. Maybe if the economy continues to drag as we head into the winter months, but by July I expect to see gas prices topping $3/gallon or more again.
So as gas prices drop people cheer and they hop into their cars again, forgetting that transit got them through the worst of the gas crunch this summer. It’s like turning down that clearance aisle at the department store and finding something you were planning on buying anyway, but now it’s half the cost you expected. Bonus!
And the worst part is that many transit agencies will just be glad to keep the riders they can, not go out and campaign to keep ridership surging even though gas prices are plummeting. Will transit ridership drop off that much now that gas prices have gone down? I hope not, but they will definitely drop below the highs we had over the summer.
Now is the time for transit to step forward and make sure people don’t forget all the other benefits riders enjoyed while switching to transit other than relief from high gas prices.
Transit memory is a problem we can all overcome together!
Thanks for reading the MT Position updated every Friday,
November 21st, 2008 at 11:37 am
Most people who drive don’t care for mass transit and only a very small number of commuters switched from driving to transit when gas prices went sky high.
It is also quite well known that most transit users are “Captive Riders†who do not have access to a car VS “Choice Riders†who do have access to both a car and transit.
For most commuters, mass transit is a very poor alternative to driving and people who own cars are paying almost 10 times more for their transportation than those who rely exclusively on transit.
In other words, people are “Voting with their pocket books†and they are electing to spend a lot more of their money on a car (and gas) rather than put up with the hassle of using transit.
This is not going to change no matter if gas prices go back up.
November 23rd, 2008 at 11:33 pm
Galen is correct in that generally mass transit is a poor alternative to the car but there are many examples throughout the world where the reverse is true.
In those examples mass transit (in all modes) clearly shows a relative competitive advantage over the car which ridership figures prove. As many of these examples are readily transferable to authorities throughout the world it is an indictment that we do not see more global ideas and solutions incorporated into our local systems.
I can hear the screams now from senior people and planners in various Authorities. “It won’t work here, we’re unique because ……… (you fill in the dots) As a marketer of over 20 years and having dealt with many industries and markets, I can say each market is unique in some way but that each market has more in common with other markets than is generally perceived (or admitted to).
Industries and companies fail or perform poorly when the senior staff are more interested in their power or salary than they are their clients and staff or when they are afraid to have their shortcomings exposed.
Michael Mogavero’s article “Strategic Planning in …..Authority shows what a small, dedicated and cluey bunch of people can achieve when they apply themselves to their existing and new customers. An excellent example of what can be achieved when the politics and power struggles that occur in companies are put aside.
So I submit that mass transit can influence how people travel and it has many existing examples of how it has achieved this. The solutions already exist it’s only a matter of implementation.
November 24th, 2008 at 8:22 am
Anybody who didn’t see the handwriting on the wall when gas hit $4.50/gallon is just going to go under when the next wave hits. Believe it, a lot of people who are driving now because their lives were planned around it are also rethinking those lives.
People can’t quit their jobs or sell their houses now because we have a recession heading for a depression. A lot of people with “drive until you qualify” houses will lose (or sell at a loss) those homes the next time gas goes above $4.
Transit agencies aren’t trying to keep all that new ridership because they were going broke trying to provide the service. Providing a lot of new service with buses will just mean losing money in larger amounts. Basically, as a nation, we’ve been caught flat-footed, without enough rail transit to do the job. For that, we’re going to pay.
November 25th, 2008 at 8:41 am
Historically, transit is a service industry, not a necessary urban evil. Those people who have divested of their automobiles will not just run out and buy another one unless transit chases them away. Transit needs to believe in itself as desirable, or transit will make itself an unpleasant experience.
Customers like to have a choice and they don’t like to be second best, so let’s not assume that all our riders would rather be in a car. Customers don’t need transit reminding them that they’re a captive audience; that message is already delivered through strikes and funding crises. As long as we assume that “for most commuters, mass transit is a very poor alternative to driving”, we are selling ourselves short.
Transit people tend to remember all the negatives. This is typical for a service industry. That negative memory continues through the industry as veterans teach rookies the urban legends. The same is true on the other side of the farebox; customers forget the smooth rides and remember incidents. The culture tends to undervalue the service, and this shows in transit’s public image. People won’t choose transit if transit people don’t believe the service can be a FIRST choice.
December 1st, 2008 at 3:54 pm
There have were some amusing reactions to the fuel price spike, one being the new-found and affordable utility that public transit provides in major metropolitan areas to non-users. One of the comments I’ve heard more than a few times is that the trains, buses and trolleys “are so crowded that I don’t know how people can use these systems regularly.” The hard truth we in the industry all know is that because transit is treated like a red-headed stepchild by government, particularly the federal governemnt, system operations are often underfunded and capital is sized based on demand. Unlike many commodities and services, transit does not have an elasticity of supply to meet sustained surges in demand. Spare ratios are driven by best practices that require operators to maintain the optimal (read minimal) number of vehicles to meet projected service requirements. So when the newly religious riding public descends upon transit systems like a horde of locusts in response to a pinch in their wallets, the operators can only do so much to meet the demand, and only for so long. Similarly, operating and maintenance facilities follow the same paradigm. What we need to assure the continued reliability and viability of transit for a larger audience is an incentive/disincentive system that transcends mere market pressure. Incentives for employers, employees and regular transit users to underwrite and use transit(in contrast to higher employee benefits for parking than transit that are now operative,)congestion pricing for driving and parking during peak periods, and investment that insures that high levels of service are sustainable. It happens in lots of progressive cities, both here in the US and abroad where the collective societal value of public transportation has long been know. Why not all?