The Antiplanner

Other People’s Money

17th March 2009

Other People’s Money

posted in News commentary, Transportation |

Good news! You can save money by selling your car and riding transit instead. The American Public Transportation Association (APTA) says the average person can save $8,500 a year taking transit instead of owning a car.

This is based on the AAA cost-of-driving formula, which says that driving costs an average of $0.54 cents per vehicle mile. Funny how Americans only actually spend $0.39 cents a vehicle mile, at least according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis. The difference? The BEA uses actual costs while AAA numbers are hypothetical.

So that might reduce the savings to only $6,100, which is still a lot. But the other big thing APTA is leaving out is the huge subsidies to transit. Transit subsidies amount to $0.61 per passenger mile. APTA assumed that, prior to giving up their car, the transit rider drove 15,000 miles a year. At $0.61 per mile, a transit rider who rides 15,000 miles a year gets about $9,150 in subsidies.

So you can save, maybe, $6,100 a year by imposing more than $9,100 in costs on other taxpayers. Good deal!

This entry was posted on Tuesday, March 17th, 2009 at 12:00 am and is filed under News commentary, Transportation. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

There are currently 59 responses to “Other People’s Money”

Please feel free to submit comments. Constructive debate is welcome. Ad hominem attacks and name-calling will reveal the shallowness of the author. Foul language may be deleted. Your first comment will require moderation; after that, all comments will be approved unless they contain too many links in which case the software may hold them for approval as potential spam.

1 On March 17th, 2009, prk166 said:
What value do they put on time?

posted on March 17th, 2009 at 1:34 am
2 On March 17th, 2009, JimKarlock said:
AntiPlanner: Funny how Americans only actually spend $0.39 cents a vehicle mile, at least according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis.
JK: At a national average of 1.6 passengers/car, this gives $0.24 per passenger-mile. This is the number to compare with transit.

AntiPlanner: Transit subsidies amount to $0.61 per passenger mile.
JK: Assuming that the subsidy represents 75% of the actual cost, the actual cost of transit works out to $0.81 per passenger-mile, or 3.4 times that of driving.

AntiPlanner: So you can save, maybe, $6,100 a year by imposing more than $9,100 in costs on other taxpayers. Good deal!
JK: Maybe its time to quit giving well off ,able bodied people, a free ride on transit and reserve the subsidies to those who are actually are in need?

Thanks
JK

posted on March 17th, 2009 at 1:34 am
3 On March 17th, 2009, C. P. Zilliacus said:
The Antiplanner posted:

> So that might reduce the savings to only $6,100, which is still a lot. But the other big thing APTA
> is leaving out is the huge subsidies to transit. Transit subsidies amount to $0.61 per passenger
> mile. APTA assumed that, prior to giving up their car, the transit rider drove 15,000 miles a year.
> At $0.61 per mile, a transit rider who rides 15,000 miles a year gets about $9,150 in subsidies.
>
> So you can save, maybe, $6,100 a year by imposing more than $9,100 in costs on other taxpayers.
> Good deal!

APTA also forgot to mention that its U.S. public transit authority members are totally
dependent on taxes paid by the drivers of those nasty cars and trucks through diversion of
highway user revenues (in the form of motor fuel taxes, various excise taxes, tolls and other
taxes) to transit capital and operating subsidies.

So if a significant number of people were to make the switch from private automobiles to mass
transit, then those transit agencies would grind to a halt because of reductions in the subsidies
that allow them to operate in the first place.

When you lose money on every trip (as very nearly all transit operations in the U.S. do),
you cannot make it up in volume.

Moral of the story: APTA had best be careful what it asks for, because it just might get it.

posted on March 17th, 2009 at 2:43 am
4 On March 17th, 2009, jwetmore said:
But I use my car to go places that transit doesn’t go, and can’t go. I use my car to go places when tranit isn’t running. I also use my car to carry stuff that I couldn’t carry on transit. Tranist just does not provide the utility that my car does.

A better comparison would be to compare the cost of owning a car and using it fewer miles each year, and factoring in the added time required for transit use. (That is calculating the marginal cost of a reduction in mileage, rather than the average cost per mile.) Another alternative is not owning a car, but renting a car when transit does not provide the required utility. (Like when I brought my sick child to the emergency room in the middle of the night, and avoided a $1500 dollar ambulance charge.)

Bottom line. It is not enough to compare average costs. It is nessesary to compare value provided for the cost.

posted on March 17th, 2009 at 6:26 am
5 On March 17th, 2009, Borealis said:
What is interesting is that if everyone could save $8500 per year, why don’t more people sell their car and just take transit? You can either think people don’t know what is good for them, or that they value the car more than $8500 per year.

posted on March 17th, 2009 at 6:55 am
6 On March 17th, 2009, LarryG said:
Hey.. stick around.. cuz you may be about to save even more money…

Here’s what the National Surface Transportation Infrastructure
Financing Commission said:
” Raise the gas tax now, by 10 cents from the current 18.4 cents per
gallon. Then replace it entirely over the next decade or so with a
system that would charge drivers a fee per mile driven.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/15/AR200...

posted on March 17th, 2009 at 11:28 am
7 On March 17th, 2009, Neal Meyer said:
I know I can’t save $8,500 per year using transit. I drive my 20 year old car about 6,000 miles per year, which everyone knows is completely impossible to do where I live because my city is all sprawled out. My total annual cost of ownership – and this includes gas, insurance, registration, repairs, but not depreciation because my 20 year old car has been just about as depreciated as you can get – is only about $2,000 – $2,500 per year.

As it is, I’ve come to the conclusion that walking is fine for many things I have to do. A trip by bicycle is often as fast or faster (not to mention having more flexibility at your disposal) than using government monopoly transit for trips between 1-3 miles. We’d be better off as a country if we simply put money into wider, safer sidewalks and skipped wasting it on transit.

posted on March 17th, 2009 at 11:40 am
8 On March 17th, 2009, ws said:
Neal Meyer:“Weâ€™d be better off as a country if we simply put money into wider, safer sidewalks and skipped wasting it on transit.”

ws: A typical American is not going to walk somewhere for a service if it is over 5-10 minutes walk. Typical sprawl locations do not fit this criteria. I agree with more sidewalks, but I don’t know how cost effective it would be to construct miles of virgin sidewalks so people can look at something different when they drive by.

PS: What will your cost per year be when you need to buy a new car?

posted on March 17th, 2009 at 12:10 pm
9 On March 17th, 2009, ws said:
ROT:“So you can save, maybe, $6,100 a year by imposing more than $9,100 in costs on other taxpayers. Good deal!”

ws: ROT, where are you getting $9,100 per year on other taxpayers? Is this per taxpayer, and what is the methodology/source for calculating this cost?

posted on March 17th, 2009 at 12:12 pm
10 On March 17th, 2009, ws said:
Not to be a post-whore, but this methodology does not calculate the true cost of automobile operating costs: it does not count for environmental mitigation costs, police/fire protection for cars and its burden on municipalities, trade deficit for oil imports, and other safety services needed abroad to keep oil flowing with our “buddies”.

These “costs” in your reports also did not factor in parking, unless I am missing something (which can be a few hundred for some people, not including “free” parking). The average is a couple of hundred dollars a year for parking, if I am not mistaken.

posted on March 17th, 2009 at 12:25 pm
11 On March 17th, 2009, the highwayman said:
WS, the “market” has been so distorted for so long it’s a really big mess.

Also every one knows O’Toole or Cox get paid to produce political spin junk.

BTW, have a good St.Patrick’s Day!

http://www.transport21.ie/Publications/Transport_21_Advertising/TV_Ad_-_Logo_animation.html

posted on March 17th, 2009 at 1:12 pm
12 On March 17th, 2009, JimKarlock said:
ws said: this methodology does not calculate the true cost of automobile operating costs: it does not count for environmental mitigation costs, police/fire protection for cars and its burden on municipalities, trade deficit for oil imports, and other safety services needed abroad to keep oil flowing with our â€œbuddiesâ€.
JK: I wonâ€™t waste my time addressing your first four falsities, but direct interested readers to: http://ti.org/antiplanner/?p=500 And http://www.portlandfacts.com/Roads/RoadSubsidy.htm

Your last one is easy to show false: Mass transit DOES NOT SAVE ENERGY therefore it uses as much oil as driving. See http://www.portlandfacts.com/Transit/BusVsCarTEDB.htm

Please quit parroting the transit industry lies.

Thanks
JK

posted on March 17th, 2009 at 2:21 pm
13 On March 17th, 2009, the highwayman said:
It makes we wonder what “libertarians” fear so much, to do so much bashing?

posted on March 17th, 2009 at 5:56 pm
14 On March 17th, 2009, the highwayman said:
http://www.portlandfacts.com/Roads/RoadSubsidy.htm

JK: 1) But what if roads were subsidized? Roads are used by everyone (they even had roads before cars!), so it is really a case of user pays. Very fair.

THWM: There is no profit or loss basis for the street in front of you home. You’re taking advantage of some thing that is in the public domain, where all expenses are borne by every body & even you admitted that roads were around before cars.

JK: 2) Fact is that transit is highly subsidised by the majority of the taxpayers for a small minority of people who actually use transit. Not a case of user pays. Not very fair.

THWM: WTF?

At least Mr.Cox has this on his site, even though he never practices it.

What government does for one it should do for all;

What government does not do for all it should do for none.

posted on March 17th, 2009 at 8:30 pm
15 On March 18th, 2009, ws said:
JK:“Your last one is easy to show false: Mass transit DOES NOT SAVE ENERGY therefore it uses as much oil as driving. See http://www.portlandfacts.com/Transit/BusVsCarTEDB.htm“

ws:

1) Your numbers are not up-to-date, especially for Portland’s light rail. In 2007, according to the National Transit Database, Portland’s light rail had 186,540,535 annual passenger miles.

Passenger Miles per kWh: 186,540,535 Ã· 43,058,913 = 4.33 P-mile/kWh

Electrical BTU per passenger mile: 3412 Btu/kWh Ã· 4.33 P-mile/kWh = 788 Btu/pass-mile

Fossil fuel BTU per passenger mile 3 x 788 = 2364 BTU/pass-mile <——- Although, I’d like to know where you get the 3 multiplier from?

I would like to note that the annual passenger miles I used were from 2007 – NOT 2008, which saw an exponential growth in ridership. As noted through these numbers, mass transit has the best ability for growth and ability to reduce energy. According to your numbers, the MAX had 2514 Btu/pass-mile in 2002. Utilizing the 2007 ridership totals, the MAX was able to reduce its btus/per passenger miles by 6%.

http://saveportland.com/Car_Vs_Tri-Met/energy-cost-death-02d.htm

MAX translated to gasolene: 125,000 Btu/gal Ã· 2364 Btu/pass-mile = 52.87 pass-mi/gal <—— Better than pretty much any car out there.

According to your numbers, the average car uses 3,549 btus/passenger mile. The Honda Insight puts out 1,326 btus/passenger mile (according to your numbers). However, when I search on a real website that shows the actual mpg, it shows the 5 speed mt Honda insight (2006) to be 48 city/ 58 highway mpg. ALSO, the 2010 Honda insight gets 40/43 MPG. So obviously the 2006 methodology was not correct for real world mpg. I know this because my car supposedly gets 40 mpg highway, but realistically I get 33-35 mpg highway.

http://automobiles.honda.com/insight-hybrid/

PS: Why is it that 4 years later the Honda Insight’s MPG went way down? Clearly the MPG rating was not accurate.

What I will say is that your numbers also do not include the btus to make cars, create the roads (or maintain them). One more car on the road is greater energy use than one more person on mass transit, as shown by my numbers. The greatest reductions are to be seen through some forms of mass transit.

We also cannot trust your anti-American, social engineering (socialistic utopia) idea of having everyone drive in a small, foreign made Honda insight or Kia Rio. Get real, I want my American made gas-guzzlin’ SUV. How dare you trump on my freedoms to choose a car I want, you fascist?

According to your methodologies, Portland’s light rail is very efficient. Who knew you’d be such a closet supporter!?

posted on March 18th, 2009 at 1:11 pm
16 On March 18th, 2009, Owen McShane said:
The efficiency of a transport mode is not determined by the efficiency of the vehicle.

It is determined by the efficiency of moving the freight or the person.

For example a container ship is the most “efficient” transport vehicle in the world.
But if you want to ship green lipped mussels from NZ to California then an aircraft is much more efficient.

People keep saying trains are more efficient at carrying freight than trucks.
If they were then all freight would go by truck.
It doesn’t. Some does because the combination of journey length and the bulk of the cargo makes the train mode efficient.
But the average freight trip in NZ is only about 30K and trucks beat rail hands down over such small distances.

When you say “Portland Rail is very efficient you have to identify “who for and for what?”
As Aaron Widavsky once said in a class in which we had all agreed that efficiency was “a good thing” – “So would you like a train carrying Jews to Belsen to be efficient?”

posted on March 18th, 2009 at 9:08 pm
17 On March 18th, 2009, Dan said:
Owen,

not sure what you are babbling about, but if you are serious about supporting your statement It is determined by the efficiency of moving the freight or the person without using non-sequiturs, then ws did that for you in the comment immediately preceding yours. Otherwise, WTF?

DS

posted on March 18th, 2009 at 9:26 pm
18 On March 19th, 2009, craig said:
It doesn’t matter if transit uses less fuel or not, if it does not go to where you need to be, when you need to be there.

That is why only 2% of the Portland Metro area ride transit.

We are voting with our cars and trucks.

posted on March 19th, 2009 at 5:10 am
19 On March 19th, 2009, C. P. Zilliacus said:
the highwayman [sic] asked:

> It makes we wonder what â€œlibertariansâ€ fear so much, to do so much bashing?

Who’s a libertarian? Or Libertarian? Or who are “libertarians?”

One answer is this:

Not me!

posted on March 19th, 2009 at 8:42 am
20 On March 19th, 2009, ws said:
craig: “That is why only 2% of the Portland Metro area ride transit.”

ws: Passenger miles. Not trips.

posted on March 19th, 2009 at 10:10 am
21 On March 19th, 2009, prk166 said:
Trade defecit for oil imports as a “cost” of a car? Are you serious WS?

posted on March 19th, 2009 at 12:20 pm
22 On March 19th, 2009, the highwayman said:
So much for context.

posted on March 19th, 2009 at 12:30 pm
23 On March 19th, 2009, craig said:
ws: Passenger miles. Not trips.
Ws

I went to work stopped at the gas station and at two more places before I got to work. Are we counting miles or the 4 trips I took to work.

I still had to drive 15 miles and it doesn’t matter if it took 1 or 4 trips to get there.

If I used transit I don’t think the cast iron bathtub would have fit on the bus or the train, if I was able to pick it up.

posted on March 19th, 2009 at 3:47 pm
24 On March 19th, 2009, the highwayman said:
Owen McShane said:
The average freight trip in NZ is only about 30KM and trucks beat rail hands down over such small distances.

THWM: Though for longer distances there are still better options.

http://www.wabashnational.com/RoadRailer.htm

posted on March 19th, 2009 at 3:56 pm
25 On March 19th, 2009, the highwayman said:
craig said:
If I used transit I donâ€™t think the cast iron bathtub would have fit on the bus or the train, if I was able to pick it up.

THWM: Like I said before, so much for context.

posted on March 19th, 2009 at 3:59 pm
26 On March 19th, 2009, the highwayman said:
C. P. Zilliacus said:
> It makes we wonder what â€œlibertariansâ€ fear so much, to do so much bashing?

Whoâ€™s a libertarian? Or Libertarian? Or who are â€œlibertarians?â€

One answer is this:

Not me!

THWM: Then why do Cox, O’Toole, Cato, Reason(sic) hate/fear transit & trains?

It’s no different than the way the KKK hate/fear black people & Jews?

I have no problem with you wanting to drive, that’s your choice & so be it.

Though don’t try to stop other people from having the choice of traveling by transit & train.

posted on March 19th, 2009 at 6:46 pm
27 On March 20th, 2009, ws said:
prk166:“Trade defecit for oil imports as a â€œcostâ€ of a car? Are you serious WS?”

ws:I can’t say it’s a true externality, but a trade deficit can be a hindrance to our economy, and it is something to consider knowing that petroleum (and consumer goods) is the largest contributor to our trade deficit:

http://useconomy.about.com/od/tradepolicy/p/Trade_Deficit.htm

posted on March 20th, 2009 at 12:18 pm
28 On March 20th, 2009, ws said:
craig: “I went to work stopped at the gas station and at two more places before I got to work. Are we counting miles or the 4 trips I took to work.

I still had to drive 15 miles and it doesnâ€™t matter if it took 1 or 4 trips to get there.

If I used transit I donâ€™t think the cast iron bathtub would have fit on the bus or the train, if I was able to pick it up.”

ws: Certain trips are good for certain modes of transportation. Sometimes you need a car to carry large loads, sometimes not. I am a big advocate for multi-modal transportation, though I think the US’ dependence on the car is slightly absurd and not entirely due to the free market “choice”.

I would argue that most trips you’re not picking up a cast iron bathtub – and I would also argue that a lot of people do not have the vehicle to handle such a load, to which a delivery by companies that sell such items is available.

I’ve made multiple stops in Portland via the MAX. For instance, I’ve gone to a restaurant, stopped at an office supply store, a bookstore, and a bank (all within a few blocks of each other). I would consider this one trip. Now, place these goods and services in low-density sprawl and not only would they take longer, but you would be going more miles total, making the whole “passenger miles” measure irrelevant in discussing mobility and accessibility.

Passenger miles is not completely irrelevant, but it is not the end-all-be-all.

PS: Your anecdotes are getting annoying.

posted on March 20th, 2009 at 12:27 pm
29 On March 20th, 2009, Rivlin said:
ws,

We’ve been over this before. The greater the distance of travel, the higher the cost. People wouldn’t be willing to pay more to travel further unless they were getting a greater benefit in return. So you cannot ignore distance when evaluating the benefit of transportation. That is why “trips” is not a meaningful measure of transportation benefit except in specific contexts where distance is constant. With respect to your example, the greater benefits people who live in low-density sprawl may acquire in return for traveling greater distances include cheaper housing (land is cheaper in the suburbs), shorter travel times (cars are so much faster than transit that trip time by car may be shorter even if trip distance is longer), and convenience (traveling on my schedule rather than the transit system’s schedule).

posted on March 20th, 2009 at 3:25 pm
30 On March 20th, 2009, the highwayman said:
ws: Certain trips are good for certain modes of transportation. Sometimes you need a car to carry large loads, sometimes not. I am a big advocate for multi-modal transportation, though I think the USâ€™ dependence on the car is slightly absurd and not entirely due to the free market â€œchoiceâ€.

THWM: There is always a trade off for people with where ever they live & how they get around. Though you are correct in that the level of auto dependency in the US today is a result of government planning & not a result of there being a “free market”.

posted on March 20th, 2009 at 3:54 pm
31 On March 20th, 2009, ws said:
Rivlin:Weâ€™ve been over this before. The greater the distance of travel, the higher the cost. People wouldnâ€™t be willing to pay more to travel further unless they were getting a greater benefit in return. So you cannot ignore distance when evaluating the benefit of transportation. That is why â€œtripsâ€ is not a meaningful measure of transportation benefit except in specific contexts where distance is constant.

ws: You’re right, we have been over this before. You have not defined what a longer trip is, just that “people are willing”. I think you mean to say people would not be traveling as far if they paid the actual, transparent, and free market cost of their mode of transportation. You’d also have a hard time convincing the average Joe that a longer trip is better – and that’s why people are taking them.

I also do not have a huge problem with passenger miles statistics, but I question ones where it is not used in a rate formula. Accidents per trip is not an effective statistic, however, accidents per passenger mile is a very useful statistic.

If we’re comparing two cities with similar populations, and city x has more substantially more annual passenger miles (highway miles only) than city y, does that mean that city x is more mobile (and has a better road transportation system) than city y?

Rivlin: “With respect to your example, the greater benefits people who live in low-density sprawl may acquire in return for traveling greater distances include cheaper housing (land is cheaper in the suburbs), shorter travel times (cars are so much faster than transit that trip time by car may be shorter even if trip distance is longer), and convenience (traveling on my schedule rather than the transit systemâ€™s schedule).”

ws: Housing costs are generally cheaper on the periphery of municipalities. However, as history has shown, this is only for short periods of time until these areas fill in and urbanize. Escaping higher prices of housing is temporary and ultimately the cycle is rinsed and repeated at costs to municipalities for distant infrastructure and environmental degradation.

I’d also argue that more auto-dependence is more expensive than mass transit and denser living. Spending 20-30% of your income on transportation is not a affordable (At the same time, income spent on food has gone down with health care costs skyrocketing. Could auto-dependence and decreased money spent on sustenance be a correlate to obesity and heart disease rates? Maybe.

http://htaindex.cnt.org/

I’m not aware of too many poor countries with three automobiles (or any) per household. Why is this? The Antiplanner makes arguments all the time that driving is good for the poor and it is cheap.

posted on March 20th, 2009 at 4:47 pm
32 On March 20th, 2009, Rivlin said:
ws,

You have not defined what a longer trip is

A trip of greater distance. Was this really not clear to you?

I think you mean to say people would not be traveling as far if they paid the actual, transparent, and free market cost of their mode of transportation.

No, what I meant to say is what I did say, namely that people wouldnâ€™t be willing to pay more to travel further unless they were getting a greater benefit in return. Are you disputing this point? If so, what is your argument against it?

And because greater distance means greater benefit, “trips” is not a meaningful measure of transportation benefit. The benefit is a matter of both the number of passengers and the distance of travel. That is, transportation benefit is a matter of passenger-miles of travel, not “trips.”

Housing costs are generally cheaper on the periphery of municipalities.

Housing in low-density suburbs is generally cheaper than housing in high-density central cities. And because density is lower in suburbs, average trip distance is likely to be higher in suburbs than in central cities. Average trip cost increases with average trip distance. So cheaper housing is one of the benefits people get in return for paying the higher cost of trips in the suburbs as compared to central cities. Another potential benefit is the time savings of travel by car vs. travel by transit. And another benefit is the greater convenience of car travel.

posted on March 20th, 2009 at 5:19 pm
33 On March 20th, 2009, the highwayman said:
Rivlin said:
Housing in low-density suburbs is generally cheaper than housing in high-density central cities. And because density is lower in suburbs, average trip distance is likely to be higher in suburbs than in central cities. Average trip cost increases with average trip distance. So cheaper housing is one of the benefits people get in return for paying the higher cost of trips in the suburbs as compared to central cities.

THWM: That’s the trade off.

Rivlin: Another potential benefit is the time savings of travel by car vs. travel by transit. And another benefit is the greater convenience of car travel.

THWM: That’s an opportunity cost, not a benefit.

posted on March 20th, 2009 at 6:40 pm
34 On March 20th, 2009, Rivlin said:
Highwayman, I filed you in the “too stupid and obnoxious to bother with” category long ago. I’m surprised AP hasn’t banned you.

posted on March 20th, 2009 at 7:08 pm
35 On March 20th, 2009, ws said:
Rivlin: “A trip of greater distance. Was this really not clear to you?”

ws: Please, be more ambiguous. What is a long distance, short distance, etc.? Likewise, what is an average/median distance via car in Europe?

Rivlin: “No, what I meant to say is what I did say, namely that people wouldnâ€™t be willing to pay more to travel further unless they were getting a greater benefit in return. Are you disputing this point? If so, what is your argument against it?”

ws: I’m disputing that people are not paying the actual price of their transportation mode. Would people be logging as much miles if gas at the pump were $12 a gallon? I wouldn’t think so. Free markets are not at work, yet we are being duped that they are.

Rivlin: “And because greater distance means greater benefit, â€œtripsâ€ is not a meaningful measure of transportation benefit. The benefit is a matter of both the number of passengers and the distance of travel. That is, transportation benefit is a matter of passenger-miles of travel, not â€œtrips.â€”

ws:What’s a “greater distance”? Enlighten us all. What percentage of cities are above/below the average distance?

Rivlin:“Another potential benefit is the time savings of travel by car vs. travel by transit. And another benefit is the greater convenience of car travel.”

ws:I save plenty of time by just living closer to amenities and walking, which is very convenient. Car travel can be definitely be convenient when few people are on the road and there’s miles of land consumptive (municipally demanded) parking spaces. If you don’t allow for other options, through myopic design, you of course get what you designed for: cars. The biggest enemies of cars is other cars.

Your argument seems to fall under transit vs. automobile, urban systems are much more complex than that. People in cities/traditional neighborhoods don’t just take transit, there’s a whole slough of options including automobiles.

You’re stating maxims without substantiating anything, which is hypocritical because I got in trouble from you for doing the same thing in a previous post. There’s plenty of congestion in suburban areas, especially when considering the low population/travel times of some suburbs.

posted on March 20th, 2009 at 8:22 pm
36 On March 20th, 2009, the highwayman said:
Rivlin said: Highwayman, I filed you in the â€œtoo honest to bother withâ€ category long ago. Iâ€™m surprised AP hasnâ€™t banned you.

THWM: Thanks!

posted on March 20th, 2009 at 8:40 pm
37 On March 20th, 2009, the highwayman said:
Rivlin: â€œNo, what I meant to say is what I did say, namely that people wouldnâ€™t be willing to pay more to travel further unless they were getting a greater benefit in return. Are you disputing this point? If so, what is your argument against it?â€

ws: Iâ€™m disputing that people are not paying the actual price of their transportation mode. Would people be logging as much miles if gas at the pump were $12 a gallon? I wouldnâ€™t think so. Free markets are not at work, yet we are being duped that they are.

THWM: There is no such thing as a “free market”, just as there is no such thing as a “free lunch”, some one, some where is always paying the price.

The street in front of your home forms an important commons, but it’s also very abused by certain political factions who like to claim it as an example of a “free market” when clearly it is not & then go on to attack other modes just because they don’t like them.

Rivlin:â€œAnother potential benefit is the time savings of travel by car vs. travel by transit. And another benefit is the greater convenience of car travel.â€

ws:I save plenty of time by just living closer to amenities and walking, which is very convenient. Car travel can be definitely be convenient when few people are on the road and thereâ€™s miles of land consumptive (municipally demanded) parking spaces. If you donâ€™t allow for other options, through myopic design, you of course get what you designed for: cars. The biggest enemies of cars is other cars.

THWM: That’s just it, all of this auto dependent development was planned/socially engineered as such. The deck was loaded right from the start & so it makes other travel options more cost prohibitive by default.

posted on March 20th, 2009 at 9:32 pm
38 On March 21st, 2009, craig said:
Yesterday I had to go to Lake Oswego on the south west side of Portland. It took about 20 minutes to get there, during rush hour by car and it was about 15 to 20 miles. If I had chosen to use transit it would have taken half the day to get their and back and a multitude of transfers.

I prefer the choice of an auto over being a slave to transits schedules and routes.

posted on March 21st, 2009 at 9:40 am
39 On March 21st, 2009, ws said:
craig: Yesterday I had to go to Lake Oswego on the south west side of Portland. It took about 20 minutes to get there, during rush hour by car and it was about 15 to 20 miles. If I had chosen to use transit it would have taken half the day to get their and back and a multitude of transfers.

ws: Except LO only has bus service. I hardly consider buses that ride on the same traffic as other cars as “quality” transportation.

posted on March 21st, 2009 at 11:22 am
40 On March 21st, 2009, the highwayman said:
craig said:
Yesterday I had to go to Lake Oswego on the south west side of Portland. It took about 20 minutes to get there, during rush hour by car and it was about 15 to 20 miles. If I had chosen to use transit it would have taken half the day to get their and back and a multitude of transfers.

I prefer the choice of an auto over being a slave to transits schedules and routes.

THWM: That still isn’t a reason to be against mass transit & trains.

Just as there are people that don’t want to be tethered to an automobile and that’s their choice too.

Then live & let live!

posted on March 21st, 2009 at 11:26 am
41 On March 21st, 2009, ws said:
THWM: “Thatâ€™s just it, all of this auto dependent development was planned/socially engineered as such. The deck was loaded right from the start & so it makes other travel options more cost prohibitive by default.”

ws: That’s why I always get a kick out of people throwing around the “social engineering” term, especially to refer to transit, TODs, etc. I grew up in autotopia/suburbia my whole life – there’s nothing that’s not socially engineered in these types of environments. Unless one considers only living next to people of the same race, socio-economic status, and only able to drive to get somewhere as not social engineering.

I agree there’s a few extreme people who think people should just live in towers and only take transit and never drive in a car (through social engineering methods). But that’s just insane thinking by them, and I put them in the same extremist camp as the antiplanner, sprawl apologists.

posted on March 21st, 2009 at 11:31 am
42 On March 21st, 2009, craig said:
Except LO only has bus service. I hardly consider buses that ride on the same traffic as other cars as â€œqualityâ€ transportation.
WS

I haven’t seen a light rail line or bus line that can serve my needs. Does that mean we have no quality transit In Portland?

I along with 98% of the people in the Portland Metro area, choose not to use transit.

posted on March 21st, 2009 at 11:36 am
43 On March 21st, 2009, ws said:
craig “I along with 98% of the people in the Portland Metro area, choose not to use transit.”

ws: So you’re saying, of the 1.4 million people in the Portland Metro area, that only 280,000 of people use mass transit? Substantiate your claims, otherwise don’t use them at all.

posted on March 21st, 2009 at 11:44 am
44 On March 21st, 2009, Rivlin said:
What is a long distance, short distance, etc.? Likewise, what is an average/median distance via car in Europe?

It’s like I’m talking to a child. Not “long” distance. LongER distance. A longer trip, in the spatial sense of “longer,” is a trip of greater distance. Again, what part of this don’t you understand?

Iâ€™m disputing that people are not paying the actual price of their transportation mode.

Irrelevant. Obviously, someone is paying the cost of each trip. The longer the trip, the higher the cost. For most trips, user costs increase with trip distance.

I save plenty of time by just living closer to amenities and walking, which is very convenient.

Your personal situation is completely irrelevant to the issue. If people who live in low-density suburbs, and who incur the additional costs of longer average trip distances as a result of living in the suburbs, did not receive additional benefits to compensate them for those additional costs they wouldn’t choose to live in the suburbs. They’d live in higher-density areas where trip distances are shorter and transportation costs are lower. The additional benefits people get from living in suburbs, where transportation costs are higher than they are in central cities, include cheaper housing, shorter travel times and more comfortable transportation. And this is why “trips” is not a meaningful measure of the benefits of transportation.

posted on March 21st, 2009 at 12:24 pm
45 On March 21st, 2009, the highwayman said:
ws: Thatâ€™s why I always get a kick out of people throwing around the â€œsocial engineeringâ€ term, especially to refer to transit, TODs, etc. I grew up in autotopia/suburbia my whole life – thereâ€™s nothing thatâ€™s not socially engineered in these types of environments. Unless one considers only living next to people of the same race, socio-economic status, and only able to drive to get somewhere as not social engineering.

I agree thereâ€™s a few extreme people who think people should just live in towers and only take transit and never drive in a car (through social engineering methods). But thatâ€™s just insane thinking by them, and I put them in the same extremist camp as the antiplanner, sprawl apologists.

THWM: Maybe that’s why the autopians are so up set with spending money on transit, because it is de-social engineering.

For that matter the Portland area alone once had close to 200 miles of streetcar line and the only reason it still doesn’t have that today is just politics.

posted on March 21st, 2009 at 12:32 pm
46 On March 21st, 2009, the highwayman said:
Rivlin said:
Your personal situation is completely irrelevant to the issue. If people who live in low-density suburbs, and who incur the additional costs of longer average trip distances as a result of living in the suburbs, did not receive additional benefits to compensate them for those additional costs they wouldnâ€™t choose to live in the suburbs. Theyâ€™d live in higher-density areas where trip distances are shorter and transportation costs are lower. The additional benefits people get from living in suburbs, where transportation costs are higher than they are in central cities, include cheaper housing, shorter travel times and more comfortable transportation. And this is why â€œtripsâ€ is not a meaningful measure of the benefits of transportation.

THWM: Though streetcar suburbs & railroad suburbs are still suburbs.

posted on March 21st, 2009 at 12:37 pm
47 On March 21st, 2009, ws said:
Rivlin:“Itâ€™s like Iâ€™m talking to a child. Not â€œlongâ€ distance. LongER distance. A longer trip, in the spatial sense of â€œlonger,â€ is a trip of greater distance. Again, what part of this donâ€™t you understand?”

ws:Well, obviously I’m looking for some numbers to quantify what you mean by “longer”.

Rivlin:Irrelevant. Obviously, someone is paying the cost of each trip. The longer the trip, the higher the cost. For most trips, user costs increase with trip distance.

ws: This is not irrelevant. “Someone paying” = property or income taxes. These are not user fees, but rather regressive taxes. There are city services that automobile users are not paying directly which include some local street costs, police and fire protection, and environmental degradation. Bring these costs to the individual, in true free market fashion, and you will see a direct reduction in automobile traffic (and congestion) and increase in mass transit numbers.

Rivlin: And this is why â€œtripsâ€ is not a meaningful measure of the benefits of transportation.

ws: If someone walks 3 blocks to get an apple and another person drives 5 miles for an apple, under your methodology, the automobile is the “best” because it went further in miles. Both took one trip, obviously. Once again, people cannot see the benefits of alternative transportation methods if they are not viable or even available in their living situation.

posted on March 21st, 2009 at 12:42 pm
48 On March 21st, 2009, craig said:
Ws
You don’t have the power to tell me what I can or cannot post.

posted on March 21st, 2009 at 4:07 pm
49 On March 21st, 2009, the highwayman said:
craig said:
Ws, you donâ€™t have the power to tell me what I can or cannot post.

THWM: This is a sad irony.

This is kind of like how the people at Cato, Reason(sic), ADC telling people in a roundabout way to live a certain life style, instead of people living their own lives the way they want to.

I hate saying this but, Craig you complain over nothing.

posted on March 21st, 2009 at 4:54 pm
50 On March 21st, 2009, the highwayman said:
ws: This is not irrelevant. â€œSomeone payingâ€ = property or income taxes. These are not user fees, but rather regressive taxes. There are city services that automobile users are not paying directly which include some local street costs, police and fire protection, and environmental degradation. Bring these costs to the individual, in true free market fashion, and you will see a direct reduction in automobile traffic (and congestion) and increase in mass transit numbers.

THWM: We know things are distorted.

Here are three thing we can do to repair the damage done over the years.

1) We can have tolls on all limited access highways.

2) We can rebuild most of the rail lines that were trashed for nothing.

3) We can get rid of zoning and forced government parking requirements.

posted on March 21st, 2009 at 5:14 pm
51 On March 21st, 2009, ws said:
craig/nativepdx:“You donâ€™t have the power to tell me what I can or cannot post.”

ws: Clearly I don’t but you’re spreading lies w/o backing them up. How about we show some facts where only 280,000 (2%) of Metro residents use mass transit like you’re insinuating?

posted on March 21st, 2009 at 6:01 pm
52 On March 21st, 2009, Rivlin said:
Well, obviously Iâ€™m looking for some numbers to quantify what you mean by â€œlongerâ€.

Good grief, are you really this stupid? There is no “quantification.” ANY trip of greater distance is a longer trip. A 5-mile trip is LONGER than a 4-mile trip. A 10,000-mile trip is LONGER than a 3,000-mile trip. Again, what part of this don’t you understand?

This is not irrelevant.

It is totally irrelevant. It doesn’t matter whether the user is paying the full cost of the trip or not. Someone is paying the costs. And they wouldn’t be willing to pay more for longer trips if those trips didn’t provide greater benefit than shorter ones.

If someone walks 3 blocks to get an apple and another person drives 5 miles for an apple, under your methodology, the automobile is the â€œbestâ€ because it went further in miles.

No, that is not my “methodology.” You persist in ignoring what I actually write and instead attribute to me positions and conclusions I have not stated and do not hold.

Assuming the cost of the 5-mile drive is higher than the cost of the 3-block walk, if someone chooses the 5-mile drive over the 3-block walk it must be because he gets some additional benefit from that more costly trip. Such as a cheaper apple. Or a higher-quality apple. Or a greater variety of apples to choose from. Or protection from the elements. Or maybe some combination of those benefits, or some other benefit or set of benefits.

posted on March 21st, 2009 at 6:55 pm
53 On March 21st, 2009, the highwayman said:
Rivlin said:
It doesnâ€™t matter whether the user is paying the full cost of the trip or not. Someone is paying the costs.

THWM: I fully agree. That’s why it’s so stupid when people like the anti-planner complain money being spent on mass transit.

posted on March 21st, 2009 at 7:37 pm
54 On March 22nd, 2009, the highwayman said:
To make a long story short, the people that pay Mr.O’Toole to travel around the world spreading bullshit, want other peoples money.

posted on March 22nd, 2009 at 9:21 pm
55 On March 23rd, 2009, Kevyn Miller said:
people wouldnâ€™t be willing to pay more to travel further unless they were getting a greater benefit in return.

If people really were perfectly informed rational economic units that would be perfectly true. Your conclusion is false to the extent that that assumption is false. Maybe if Henry Ford had leased his cars on a per thousand miles basis instead of selling them, then maybe per mile would have become the basis of charging for registration insurance and deppreciation too, so that there wouldn’t be the current temptation to spread sunk costs over as many miles as possible.

And because greater distance means greater benefit, â€œtripsâ€ is not a meaningful measure of transportation benefit. The benefit is a matter of both the number of passengers and the distance of travel. That is, transportation benefit is a matter of passenger-miles of travel, not â€œtrips.â€

Again, only as true as the behavioural assumptions it is based on.

Housing in low-density suburbs is generally cheaper than housing in high-density central cities.

That’s true today but it’s the opposite of what was true when auto-centric suburbs frst became popular. There were obviously other percieved benefits that outweighed the greater travel costs.

Average trip cost increases with average trip distance.

Only variable costs increase. Definitely, with my car annual costs such as depreciation, insurance and registration add up to more than variable costs such as tyres, petrol and servicing. Doubling my annual mileage will only increase my mileage costs by around 30%.

So cheaper housing is one of the benefits people need to get in return for paying the higher cost of trips in the suburbs as compared to central cities.

Another potential benefit is the time savings of travel by car vs. travel by transit. And another benefit is the greater convenience of car travel.

This argument, it seems to me, is the very one used by those advocating a more ‘balanced’ approach to land transport funding, although it may really only make sense when it is used to argue for less autocentric design of local roads – the ones funded by locals instead of from gas taxes.

It is totally irrelevant. It doesnâ€™t matter whether the user is paying the full cost of the trip or not. Someone is paying the costs. And they wouldnâ€™t be willing to pay more for longer trips if those trips didnâ€™t provide greater benefit than shorter ones.

That is the whole point of the externalities/hidden subsidies argument. If the full cost of the trip is being shared between the direct beneficiary of the trip and the wider community then the individual’s cost/benefit analysis for their trips is distorted. Is wider community willingly paying or just victims of the taxman/politicians/planners deciding for them?

posted on March 23rd, 2009 at 1:13 am
56 On March 29th, 2009, mattb02 said:
THWM: Thatâ€™s an opportunity cost, not a benefit.

Idiotic comment of the day. You’re a dolt. You know just enough to say something this stupid.

posted on March 29th, 2009 at 8:25 pm
57 On April 1st, 2009, the highwayman said:
There is always a trade off some where!

posted on April 1st, 2009 at 9:00 pm
58 On April 3rd, 2009, dmccall said:
I would love to know what the costs/passenger mile of limo and taxi services are. At times I feel that our city would save a lot of money if they would introduce an on-demand limo service instead of a light rail system.

posted on April 3rd, 2009 at 9:39 pm
59 On April 12th, 2009, the highwayman said:
Contact your local taxi companies for their rates, which are often by time and distance traveled.

posted on April 12th, 2009 at 12:53 am