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.
Not only does the organ become stiff, it helps it to attain stability to experience an easy erection during the process. best viagra for women Whatever be the case, your testosterone level will be improved considerably and hence your drive to perform sex. purchase cheap levitra midwayfire.com Visiting an infertility specialis active t is definitely a more proactive and logically productive approach to take out a small piece of testicular tissue in vivo to take pathological histological sections observation. However, there are a few steps that one can take to levitra 20 mg midwayfire.com cure yourself and keep the infection away from doing much harm to unborn baby. 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!
What value do they put on time?
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
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.
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.
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.
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…
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.
Neal Meyer:“We’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?
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?
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.
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
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 “buddiesâ€Â.
JK: I won’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
It makes we wonder what “libertarians” fear so much, to do so much bashing?
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.
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 ÷ 43,058,913 = 4.33 P-mile/kWh
Electrical BTU per passenger mile: 3412 Btu/kWh ÷ 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 ÷ 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!?
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?”
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
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.
the highwayman [sic] asked:
> It makes we wonder what “libertarians†fear so much, to do so much bashing?
Who’s a libertarian? Or Libertarian? Or who are “libertarians?”
One answer is this:
Not me!
craig: “That is why only 2% of the Portland Metro area ride transit.”
ws: Passenger miles. Not trips.
Trade defecit for oil imports as a “cost” of a car? Are you serious WS?
So much for context.
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.
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
craig said:
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.
THWM: Like I said before, so much for context.
C. P. Zilliacus said:
> It makes we wonder what “libertarians†fear so much, to do so much bashing?
Who’s a libertarian? Or Libertarian? Or who are “libertarians?â€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.
prk166:“Trade defecit for oil imports as a “cost†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
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 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.”
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.
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).
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 “choiceâ€Â.
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”.
Rivlin: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.
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 system’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.
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 wouldn’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.
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.
Highwayman, I filed you in the “too stupid and obnoxious to bother with” category long ago. I’m surprised AP hasn’t banned you.
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 wouldn’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, “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.—
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.
Rivlin said: Highwayman, I filed you in the “too honest to bother with†category long ago. I’m surprised AP hasn’t banned you.
THWM: Thanks!
Rivlin: “No, what I meant to say is what I did say, namely that people wouldn’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€Â
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.
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:“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.â€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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.”
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.
Except LO only has bus service. I hardly consider buses that ride on the same traffic as other cars as “quality†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.
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.
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?
I’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.
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.
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.
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 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.
THWM: Though streetcar suburbs & railroad suburbs are still suburbs.
Rivlin:“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?”
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 “trips†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.
Ws
You don’t have the power to tell me what I can or cannot post.
craig said:
Ws, you don’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.
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.
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.