Higher Gas Prices?--More Trains?

Will the higher gas prices (seems like they are here for a while) bring more shipping by freight and to ask another question, more passengers? What are your opinions?

I'm most concerned about the effect that the predicted steep, semi-permanent (???) rise in gasoline prices will have on passenger travel to and from work. I'd like to think that most motorists will begin to seriously consider using transit for some or all of their commuting distance, once prices reach a sufficiently outrageous point. But where is that point?

Let's consider a span of gas prices, and make some unscientific guesses about what segments of the car/suv/van-commuting population will consider transit, and what it'll take for them to get to this point. Our range-of-effect could span, say, $2.00/gal for plain-vanilla 87 all the way up to a wallet-smashing $3.00/gal. Heck, some industry analysts are already claiming that we'll seriously be paying that $3/g by Labor Day. [cringe]

This excersise assumes that we're not converting everyone from all-car to all-rail. Some folks way out in Suburban Sprawl Hell have no choice but to drive. (I won't gloat; it's not nice.) One or both ends of their commute may simply be nowhere near a rail route.

A lot of the other new converts to rail will be some form of "drive to the station/ride a train the rest of the way" travel. Maybe most of such journeys would have their one-way trip length around 5-10% car/90-95%rail...others (we hope) may fall into a 15-20%car/75-80%rail trip. Those new converts to transit would be most welcome, as their total trip length (in absolute mileage) is probably greater than the first group.

People who are willing to consider changing their commuting habits at the low end of the new gas price range probably fall into two general categories (assume some degree of overlap):

(1) those with genuinely limited income whose travel is already much more price-sensitive than time-sensitive, making them responsive to any uptick in gas prices lasting more than, say, a month.

(2) those who are already willing to entertain alternatives to car habits, perhaps on grounds of ecological awareness or just by virtue of living and working near transit.

I'll hazard a guess and say that once gas prices for unleaded move into the $2-2.15 range --and stay there for at least a month--, the lower-income folks will strongly consider passenger rail. Maybe our eco-friends have a slightly higher tipping point; it might be between $2.20-$2.30.

As for what percentage of the populace fits this demographic...? "Dammit, Jim, I'm a doctor; not a statistician!"

Then we have folks who have more cash to play with, and/or have more fuel-efficient vehicles, and/or don't care about anything but their own riding comfort. Their threshhold might be a function of either:

(1) higher net gas prices, period.

(2) a jump to a higher (but not super-high) price in effect for a greater period of time.

Some folks in my (admittedly casual) demographic might consider leaving their car at home as soon as $2.35-$2.55/g is reached, -or- if, after some up-n-down price fluctuations, it stays pegged at a more "modest" $2.25-2.35, but stays there for a long time (such as 3 months straight). Some may figure that $2.55/g can't possibly last & must drop pretty soon, so they won't change their driving habits. Others may be convinced by that slightly-lower gas price being reached, and then looking like it may be here forever.

I would be ready to switch to rail (if I could) if I was looking at about $2.40 a gallon, with no relief at all, from (say) mid-May all the way through the first of August. At that point, I'd figure I'd better do something.

It's a tough call. These people may be in the largest single demographic, but the one with the most individual variation in where their octane-to-pain limit lies.

Lastly, the folks we love to hate: the rich-and-reasonably-famous (or infamous?), the most diehard petro-lovin' SUV fanatics, and anyone who would rather walk over hot coals than be seen riding aboard a train. These folks will likely have the highest pro-car threshhold in my little excersise.

I figure that those who think they "can't live" without driving everywhere (even where other options exist), and/or those snobby enough to look at transit patrons as smelly losers, might not "see the light" until a gallon is $2.65-$2.80 at the pump. I'll assume that the almost-rich crowd will be the very last ones on the train, once the magic $2.80-$3.00/g is here.

(And I'm ignoring the truly-rich; they live in a world nearer heaven than earth!)

Sure, I don't have hard numbers or anything concrete to back this up. I'm just thinking out loud. As a rough guess, let's boil it down and say that transit patronage will jump up 10% at $2.25/g; +25% at $2.50/g; +50% at $2.70/g.

I hope to God that none of this comes true.

But I wouldn't bet on that.

In my off-the-cuff analysis above, I deliberately did not address the subject of rolling stock on the part of public transit. With capital funds being less than ample right now, I fear that there will, generally, not be enough equipment to accommodate more than a modest increase in ridership. At least, not with any degree of comfort that would help retain new riders after the gasoline fiasco has (hopefully) died down somewhat. Nobody can conjure up a major fleet of new coaches on just a few months' notice. Overcrowding will not be fun. Heck, some commuter railroads are already having signifigant problems with that on some lines.

Of special note are infrastructure limitations which put a hard cap on moves per hour on key rail lines. Penn Station NY immediately comes to mind. Those damned tunnels should have been supplemented with new ones at least 15 years ago. Now, there's no time to react with brand-new engineering solutions on such short notice. All we can do is hope that:

(1) Sanity returns quickly to the petroleum production/refining arena.

And, if not:

(2) Every possible piece of commuter-rail & mass transit motive power & rolling stock be made ready for some hard service, day in and day out.

The more I think about this whole subject, the more depressed I get!

Whoa, Mr. Gowen! You present a well-reasoned theory.

One hopes that the non-governmental factors in the high gas prices (i.e. all components of the price other than taxes) will prompt statehouse and Washington to action on improving mass transit, and not just prompt them to eliminate the taxes, which are necessary (esp. for funding transit).

Based on the news this week that OPEC agreed to production cuts, the price of a gallon of gas could easily reach some of the projected levels by summer (2.50 to 3.00/gallon).

One effect that it could have is where people opt to go this summer be for day trips,a weekend, or week long vacation. As I remember back in the summer of'79 when we had a "mini" gas crisis, the number of people using train service to reach beach areas skyrocketed. To this day the LIRR continues to basiclly double it's regular Montauk line schedule outbound on summer fridays and inbound on summer Sundays, with one extra oubound run on Thurdays (the cannonball), and one extra in bound on Monday mornings, in addition to one extra outbound run on Fridays for it's Greenport branch. Most of these extra runs operate from memorial Day weekend through Mid-October. This is probally the only time of the year that the LIRR actually carries a proportion of riders close to what the Hampton Jitney bus company carries year round.

NJ Transit on the other hand has continued to cut back on it's extra NJCL express trains that run during the summer to the point last year it ran them only from late June through labor Day, and ran a single extra trip from NYP on Saturdays, as well as one from HOB and Newark penn, the return trips only ran on Sun & Hol last year. With the price of gas starting a metioric rise it COULD be a business boom to shore towns along the NJCL, but NJT will need to step up to the plate and provide the appropriate level of service. The regular weekend schedule of every train running as an all stops local will not work with the extra business that NJT may attract with no extra effort on it's part. NJT has stated that it plans on promoting the SEC junction station as a "gateway" to the shore, but will NJT plan an appropriate schedule??

BTW, the official reason for the cut back in extra shore service last year was a crew shortage, stay tuned.........

Ken

Ken,

If the gas prices do go up to $3.00 per gallon as projected then look for a lot more people to use Amtrak as well. Remember, there weren't as many cars using the highways in 1979 as there are now! I can understand why people would not want to drive in traffic with high gas prices.. They will most likely use alternative methods if prices get out of hand....

The way I see things is that even if the gas prices reach the $3/gal mark, its still cheaper for me to drive. I commute eleven miles a day (22 round trip) and if I were to use NJT's bus services (rail is not an option), it would cost me $1.70 each way, for a total of $3.40 a day. Using the assumption that I use a gallon of gas a day, I'll still drive, not only because it is cheaper, but because the bus is roundabout and relatively infrequent.

That is just my situation though, and I know that other people's situations with the rail lines may be different. My situation is definitely not the norm, and if people need to commute large distances each day, then I can see them using alternate forms of transportation (read rail). Buses don't work because they get stuck in traffic, they can't use shortcuts, and most of the time are late (due largely in part to traffic) Rail lines, on the other hand, do provide frequent service and are relatively on time.

well i look at it like this.. we put $150 of diesel in the KW for work.. that fills both tanks with 100 gallons. by summer fpor the same amount we will only get about 50. 50 gallons... thats a big difference.. also maybe its me but the gas companoies see record PROFITS!!! do you see a problem with that.. its gonna hurt the guys who use that stuff to make $$$ rail roads too

ultimately its gonna hurt us all.... time for me to brew my own fuel... its easy enough

Hate to spoil the train party guys, but it doesn't look like these price
hikes will be permanent. They may go way up this summer, then
come back down after Labor Day. That means they'll be enough
to cause crowding on the existing trains, but won't last long enough
to cause major growth in the total number of trains running. A pity.
If Amtrak had any sense, they'd be making an attempt to get some of those busted cars fixed so they could cash in some this summer.

trainhq wrote:Hate to spoil the train party guys, but it doesn't look like these price
hikes will be permanent. They may go way up this summer, then
come back down after Labor Day.

I think this is the nub of the question. If the price hikes were to become permanent, and would have to last for a number of years without relief, then you might see some clamoring for more rail service. Temporary hikes, no matter how distressing, simply won't provide the motivation for this kind of "advocacy".

To be precise about it, less than 1/160th of what 'ol W is wasting in
Iraq. That puts the matter in perspective.

Realistically, how many commuters (on Rt 80 and Rt 15 in my neck of
the woods) can even get to their final destinations by mass transit?

I looked into this for myself, more to avoid driving than to save money.
Coming down 15 from Sussex County to my job in Rockaway, I could
hop a Lakeland bus on Rt. 206, get off at Landing and hoof it over to
the NJT Hopatcong station, get off at Dover, hop on a bike (if their
bike lockers are still available), and pedal 5 miles to work.

Assuming all is on schedule, and I don't get squished by a car, and
with train and bus schedules and overlaps as they are, my time out
of house would increase by four hours a day, or so. That alone makes
this idea a non-starter. Price-wise, the bus and train would be about
10-11 bucks a round trip, versus a couple of bucks for gasoline at
current prices.

Another option: move closer to my job. I might consider it if houses
were something remotely close to affordable. But they are not.
And as housing prices continue to soar, more and more people will move
farther and farther from where they work, making traffic worse and
worse. And unless mass transit can get those folk reasonably close
to their jobs and within a reasonable amount of time, those folks will
continue to drive.

- Roger

IMHO the answer to the original question is-- not likely. First, oil prices are very volatile-- they change so often and so quickly that none of the carriers would be able to respond to periodic increases in prices. If we get to $3.00 plus per gallon, for a significant period ( probably a year or more) then you might, at least, see the process begin. However, with so much depending on government action, plus the fact that there simply are not enough car and locomotive builders existing today to respond quickly to an increased demand for new cars and locomotives, I doubt very much whether the kind of gradual increase in gasoline prices we're seeing will result in more rail service any time soon. ( As difficult as they are to deal with, these increases are still relatively gradual)