Real estate prices are down almost everywhere because we’re still coming out of a housing bubble and because we’re in the worst economic recession since the 1980s. Possibly since the 1930s. Suburban/exurban housing has fallen the most because that’s where most of the housing growth occurred prior to the collapse of the bubble in 2006. The problem was compounded by record high gas prices in the summer of last year. From 2000 to at least 2006, over 90% of the population growth in the United States occurred in suburban/exurban areas. Less than 10% of it occurred in central city areas. Transit use has increased somewhat over the past few years, but transit provides such a tiny share of our total transportation that that increase has had virtually no impact on overall transportation patterns.

Huh? The growth of transportation in the U.S. since shortly after the end of World War II certainly has been largely car-dominated, but I didn’t demonstrate that. I demonstrated what you asked me to, namely, that per capita transit ridership has fallen dramatically over the past 50 years. I don’t know why you’re still questioning this. 50 years ago, there were about 10 billion transit rides in a population of about 179 million people. That’s about 55 rides per capita. In 2007, there were about 10 billion transit rides in a population of about 300 million. That’s about 33 rides per capita.

Here’s what’s happening now: Car sales are plummeting. Both domestic and foreign carmakers are losing money. People are driving less. Demand for transit is up. Our liquid fossil fuel supply has peaked. Exurban real estate is rapidly losing value and population — and the most car-dependent places are the ones suffering most. You don’t seem to have assimilated any of these provable and well-documented facts.

Gary, as I’m sure you’ve noticed, people who exchange views on this blog are generally interested in promoting transit, walking, biking, or some combination of those things (the first two in my case). Admittedly, what we discuss often arises as much from our hopes and aspirations as from provable facts. But exactly what are your hopes and aspirations — what do you hope to achieve here?

It’s hardly provocative. Just common sense, really. But if you insist….. Here’s APTA’s press release reporting that transit ridership in 2007 was the highest in 50 years:
http://www.apta.com/media/releases/080310_ridership.cfm

And here’s historical U.S. population data from Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States

As you can see, 50 years ago, the U.S. population was about 179 million. Today, it’s about 300 million. So we have about 120 million more people than we had 50 years ago, but about the same number of transit rides. Hence, ridership per capita has fallen dramatically.

A provocative thesis, and I congratulate you on that. Now, data, please?

“Obama is proposing to spend billions of dollars in investments and incentives to accelerate the shift to more fuel-efficient automobiles.”

Exactly how Obama plans to balance investments in cars and car infrastructure vs. transit and transit infrastructure remains to be seen. I will admit that his opening stimulus move — throwing money at the states with no guidance — is not promising. But his campaign website frankly advocated a more balanced approach. By the end of his (first?) term, we’ll see what he really has in mind.

Seems like pretty plausible speculation to me. Why wouldn’t you expect paratransit to take riders away from buses and trains as it becomes cheaper and easier to use through new technology?

Transit ridership — those old-fashioned buses and trains you deride — is now at levels not seen in decades.

That probably has something to do with the record high gas prices of a few months ago. The population has of course grown dramatically since transit ridership was last this high, so ridership per capita has fallen dramatically. Most large transit agencies seem to be facing severe budget problems and are considering, or are already implementing, fare increases and/or service cuts. That’s probably going to have an adverse effect on ridership.

Given the fact that energy will only get more expensive as peak oil, the forms of transportation that will probably shrink the most are the most energy-intensive ones. Thus paratransit would gain ground over private cars and taxis.

I think a more likely response is a shift to more fuel-efficient cars and taxis. Maybe you’ve seen those new “Green Cab” Toyota Prius taxi fleets that have appeared in many cities over the past few years. Obama is proposing to spend billions of dollars in investments and incentives to accelerate the shift to more fuel-efficient automobiles.

I don’t think your speculations will convince transit advocates that there are too many transit options in America. Transit ridership — those old-fashioned buses and trains you deride — is now at levels not seen in decades. We have more bodies than ever and few new seats to put them in. People are also driving less, despite the recent pullback in gas prices. All that is certainly backed up by data.

Given the fact that energy will only get more expensive as peak oil, the forms of transportation that will probably shrink the most are the most energy-intensive ones. Thus paratransit would gain ground over private cars and taxis.

Some probably would. But that won’t help buses and trains.