Sunday, August 14, 2005
Calif.: No Drive to Mass Transit
No Drive to Mass Transit
Motorists are more likely to reduce gas consumption on the weekends than change their commuting habits, experts say.
By Catherine Saillant and Amanda Covarrubias
Times Staff Writers
August 13, 2005
Times staff writers Natasha Lee and Jack Leonard contributed
to this report.
Copyright 2005 Los Angeles Times
Motorists are more likely to reduce gas consumption on the weekends than change their commuting habits, experts say.
By Catherine Saillant and Amanda Covarrubias
Times Staff Writers
August 13, 2005
Raul Mercado loves his 2002 eight-cylinder silver Mustang convertible but hates the high cost of operating it.
As gas prices hit record highs in recent weeks, the security guard has been shelling out $40 each time he fills the tank.
To save money, he bikes or walks to the beach instead of driving, switched from high-grade to medium-grade gasoline and forgoes big-chain gas stations for independents that offer lower prices.
But leave the Mustang at his Long Beach home and take the bus to work in Inglewood? No way.
"I have to pay," Mercado said. Public transportation "takes too long."
Mercado's situation underscores why so many motorists stick with their daily commutes even as gas prices approach $3 for regular. They might complain loudly about the high price of filling up but insist that other forms of transportation — carpooling, buses, trains and subways — are for someone else.
"The convenience factor is not there," said Mike St. John, who commutes from Oxnard to a firefighting job in Los Angeles. "I work differing shifts, and the train schedules don't fit."
Transit experts said high gas prices might prompt drivers to rethink that weekend trip to Las Vegas or a quick drive to the mall. But changing commuting patterns is another matter.
"That's a really difficult change to make for most people," said Genevieve Giuliano, professor of transportation policy and planning at USC. "If they take the bus, it takes twice as long to get to work and it affects everything else they do during the day."
Officials at the Metropolitan Transportation Authority and Metrolink say rising gas prices lure some new riders, but they don't always stay with the transit system for long. MTA officials said ridership on its rail lines rose 14% between June 2004 and June 2005.
A survey conducted by Metrolink two years ago found that 10% of new riders considered the trains a way to cut back on fuel costs. But six months later, only 50% of those respondents were still riding regularly, said Denise Tyrrell, a Metrolink spokeswoman.
"When gas prices are the reason, they don't stick with it," she said. "The changes that consumers make is in their vehicle choice. They'll buy a fuel-efficient vehicle before they'll ride the train or some other form of mass transit."
Riding a Metrolink train also is more of a "lifestyle choice" made by professional workers who have more flexibility with their schedules, she said.
Southern California's mass transit system is much less far-reaching than those in many Eastern cities, forcing people who want to use trains or subways to commute from their home to the stations. And even those who live relatively close to mass transit stops say bus and train rides usually take longer than driving solo.
Lars Perner, a marketing professor at San Diego State University, said many consumers also assume that gas prices will fall in the near future and that all they have to do is ride out the current wave of increases.
Though gas prices have fluctuated over the last five years, their long-term pattern has been to increase, according to averages tracked by the Automobile Club of Southern California.
In February 2000, the average price for a gallon of gas in Southern California was just under $1.50, the Auto Club said. A new record high of $2.69 a gallon was reached Thursday.
Grumbling abounds. But motorists interviewed in recent days said they weren't ready to give up the convenience and comfort of
their vehicles.
Times staff writers Natasha Lee and Jack Leonard contributed
to this report.
Copyright 2005 Los Angeles Times
Comments:
Your attempt to "bash" transit makes the point FOR transit advocates, particularly those of us who think a lot more rail makes sense. This "will they use transit" is really a "chicken or egg" dilemma.
Of course you can't expect too much of a switch to inferior, excruciatingly slow bus systems. On the other hand, you'll note that rail ridership in Los Angeles is up significantly, at least in the small fraction of L.A. where it exists.
Too bad the politicians are too scatter-brained and visionless to have figured out that Metrolink--with the commensurate level of investment and service---could carry traffic levels greater than the Netherlands or Switzerland national railways, since Southern California's population is larger than the Netherlands, but stuffed into a much smaller area, so "traffic density" is likely to be significantly higher than either the Netherlands or Switzerland.
Post a Comment
Of course you can't expect too much of a switch to inferior, excruciatingly slow bus systems. On the other hand, you'll note that rail ridership in Los Angeles is up significantly, at least in the small fraction of L.A. where it exists.
Too bad the politicians are too scatter-brained and visionless to have figured out that Metrolink--with the commensurate level of investment and service---could carry traffic levels greater than the Netherlands or Switzerland national railways, since Southern California's population is larger than the Netherlands, but stuffed into a much smaller area, so "traffic density" is likely to be significantly higher than either the Netherlands or Switzerland.