The Antiplanner

The Problem with Transit

16th July 2010

The Problem with Transit

posted in Transportation |

Table 12 of the historical tables supplementing the 2010 Public Transit Fact Book reveals that, since 1970, the number of workers needed to operate America’s public transit systems has increased by 180 percent. Table 38 reveals that, in the same time period, the cost of operating buses, trolley buses, light rail, and heavy rail (the only modes whose costs are shown in 1970) increased by 195 percent (after adjusting for inflation using the GDP deflator).

Meanwhile, table 1 shows that ridership on buses, trolley buses, light rail, and heavy rail (again, the only modes shown in 1970), grew by a mere 32 percent. That means each transit worker produced 53,115 transit trips in 1970, but only 26,314 trips by all modes in 2008. In other words, by any measure, transit productivity has declined by more than 50 percent.

About the only other industry that has seen a similar loss in productivity during the same time period is education–which, like transit, is government-run. Health-care costs have also risen, but at least we have gained longer, healthier lives because of it. Practically every other industry has seen enormous productivity increases and declining costs, at least as a share of personal income.

To help people in different parts of the country understand the problems with transit, and alternatives to the current socialized transit model, the Antiplanner has written briefing papers for several state-based think tanks. These include:

More may be published soon for other states; if so, I’ll let you know.

This entry was posted on Friday, July 16th, 2010 at 12:00 am and is filed under 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 25 responses to “The Problem with Transit”

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. 1 On July 16th, 2010, JimKarlock said:

    But how will all those poor people get around?

    Heck Portland’s trimet states that 19% of their ridership does not have a car or access to one. Of course the other 81% are getting a free ride at taxpayer expense.

    Thanks
    JK

    posted on July 16th, 2010 at 5:08 am

  2. 2 On July 16th, 2010, Jardinero1 said:

    Check your facts on healthcare. Americans are not living longer healthier lives. Healthcare provision has been steadily more government managed since the advent of Medicare in the sixties.

    posted on July 16th, 2010 at 6:19 am

  3. 3 On July 16th, 2010, Dan said:

    Health-care costs have also risen, but at least we have gained longer, healthier lives because of it.

    Only in fact-free dreams that don’t compare rate vs cost, and avoiding comparisons between any first-world country and looking solely at life expectancy and no other outcome.

    And I’m also missing the comparison to private transit in other places across the globe, and to other similarly-structured industries. How odd.

    DS

    posted on July 16th, 2010 at 6:49 am

  4. 4 On July 16th, 2010, msetty said:

    The REAL solutions to transit’s cost/low utilization problem is discussed at book length in Transport for Suburbia: Beyond the Automobile Age by Australian academic Paul Mees.

    In his earlier book, A Very Public Solution, Dr. Mees also effectively debunks the “privatization” mythology perpetuated by The Antiplanner and others, by examining the actual results of “privatized” transit in Bangkok and Melbourne, among other places.

    It is unfortunate that one must turn to a foreign source to obtain sensible solutions to a valid problem brought up by The Antiplanner.

    posted on July 16th, 2010 at 8:47 am

  5. 5 On July 16th, 2010, The Antiplanner said:

    Jardinero1 said:
    “Check your facts on healthcare. Americans are not living longer healthier lives.”

    Since 1970, U.S. life expectancy has increased from less than 71 to more than 78 years.

    posted on July 16th, 2010 at 9:11 am

  6. 6 On July 16th, 2010, ws said:

    People are not healthier now than they were years ago! Sure the lifesaving technology can keep you alive longer, but not in a “healthier” state. The average lifespan of a hunter gatherer was something like 30 years (who generally ate an optimal diet for humans). And the average lifespan of an industrial revolution worker was often much less than than that. Advancements in sanitation helped increase that life expectancy.

    Not to get too off topic here, but when people think we’re healthier because our lifespan is longer, then they’re missing the reasons why.

    Comparing transit in the 70s to now is irrelevant. You can compare other industries to now and see the costs have risen (despite ROT’s claims that education is the other industry that has increased at similar levels).

    posted on July 16th, 2010 at 9:14 am

  7. 7 On July 16th, 2010, msetty said:

    Ah, the ultimate in privatization of public space!

    http://www.fastcodesign.com/1661913/almost-genius-a-bench-you-pay-to-sit-on.

    posted on July 16th, 2010 at 2:21 pm

  8. 8 On July 16th, 2010, Spokker said:

    “Since 1970, U.S. life expectancy has increased from less than 71 to more than 78 years.”

    This is a quantitative statement that means that people are living longer. It says nothing about the quality of those years.

    posted on July 16th, 2010 at 10:18 pm

  9. 9 On July 17th, 2010, chipdouglas said:

    “Since 1970, U.S. life expectancy has increased from less than 71 to more than 78 years.”

    What a desperately pathetic objection.

    posted on July 17th, 2010 at 12:20 pm

  10. 10 On July 17th, 2010, Dan said:

    What a desperately pathetic objection.

    Egg-zackly. Talk about a metric that deliberately obfuscates the issues!

    DS

    posted on July 17th, 2010 at 12:59 pm

  11. 11 On July 17th, 2010, the highwayman said:

    JimKarlock said: Portland’s trimet states that 19% of their ridership does not have a car or access to one. Of course the other 81% are getting a free ride at taxpayer expense.

    THWM: All of Trimet’s riders pay taxes, just as people that don’t have cars pay for roads through taxes.

    posted on July 17th, 2010 at 8:54 pm

  12. 12 On July 17th, 2010, Scott said:

    What are these non-user related taxes for roads & how much?
    However little it might be, does it matter?–especially considering that 92% of US households have at least one car (93.3% excluding NYC city).

    How can a person live without roads?
    Don’t forget construction equipment & delivery of goods.
    Well, Highmy, you forget/ignore an awful lot of things.

    There is a huge travesty in many many people paying taxes for public transit, while very few ride.

    If there is a concern for people paying taxes that go towards items that they don’t use, then over 2/3 of all government expenses should be cut.

    posted on July 17th, 2010 at 9:41 pm

  13. 13 On July 18th, 2010, the highwayman said:

    I don’t mind paying for the fire department & hope I never have to call them.

    Scott, stop being such a douche tard.

    posted on July 18th, 2010 at 6:19 pm

  14. 14 On July 18th, 2010, Scott said:

    Do you think that fires are the only purpose of gov?
    Should 99.8% of gov budgets be cut?
    I already explained that protection & basic infrastructure is within 1/3 of all current gov budgets.

    I never typed anything close to the fire department being cut or paid by users only. What gave you that idea?
    Please improve your comprehension.
    You misunderstand the “don’t use” concept.
    You might rarely need the police directly, but all benefit from them, just like fire.

    posted on July 18th, 2010 at 7:31 pm

  15. 15 On July 18th, 2010, the highwayman said:

    Just as you benefit from transit, even if not directly.

    posted on July 18th, 2010 at 8:54 pm

  16. 16 On July 18th, 2010, the highwayman said:

    Scott, if you just want to drive every where I’m not stopping you from doing so, though don’t try to stop me or others from taking a train!

    posted on July 18th, 2010 at 9:18 pm

  17. 17 On July 18th, 2010, Spokker said:

    Don’t try to stop me or others from owning a satellite and putting it into orbit. Screw you, I’m going to beam footage of me playing StarCraft to the ends of the Earth!!!

    posted on July 18th, 2010 at 11:06 pm

  18. 18 On July 18th, 2010, Frank said:

    “THWM: All of Trimet’s riders pay taxes…”

    WRONG.

    At least one person I know rides TriMet and doesn’t pay taxes. Nada. Zilch. In fact, he gets his rent paid for by another agency (which is funded through government grants), receives Social Security disability benefits (even though he is fully capable of working), gets food stamps, and a receives a free Honored Citizen (a title he earned for contracting a virus because of his extremely irresponsible behavior) TriMet pass every month. Here is someone completely unproductive who earns no revenue and pays no taxes (but votes for tax increases on every Oregon ballot) and who rides TriMet.

    Granted, this is anecdotal, but certainly there must be a number of TriMet riders who pay no taxes whatsoever.

    posted on July 18th, 2010 at 11:12 pm

  19. 19 On July 19th, 2010, the highwayman said:

    Frank, when your buddy goes to Walmart he’s paying sales taxes.

    Every one pays taxes some where.

    posted on July 19th, 2010 at 2:09 am

  20. 20 On July 19th, 2010, Dan said:

    certainly there must be a number of TriMet riders who pay no taxes whatsoever.

    They’ve Gone Galt and are admitting the free riding!

    DS

    posted on July 19th, 2010 at 6:21 am

  21. 21 On July 19th, 2010, Scott said:

    Highmy,
    Public transit is for benefit to the user only.
    It cannot be equated with mass benefit or the collective such as less crime or fewer fires.

    By your illogic, then you should pay everybody who lives elsewhere because they are not in your way.

    People who want justice in paying for services are not trying to prevent others from using public transit.
    The idea is for general taxes to not go for those services, especially when so few use.

    Just paying some amount of taxes does not justify all sorts of gov services. In the example given, you have avoided that the source of money was taxpayers to begin with.

    posted on July 19th, 2010 at 8:04 am

  22. 22 On July 19th, 2010, Frank said:

    the highwayman said:

    Frank, when your buddy goes to Walmart he’s paying sales taxes.

    Every one pays taxes some where.

    No. There is no sales tax in Oregon. He pays no sales tax, no state income tax, no federal income tax. He pays no taxes whatsoever (but again has no problem voting for tax increases on the ballot–hey, it’s not his money).

    Even if he did pay any kind of user fee or an excise tax, on a cable or a phone bill, those are not related to public transit, and he is paying them with Social Security funds. Having been in the workforce for only a few years, he is receiving far more in benefits than he ever paid in Social Security payroll taxes.

    Free money. Free food. Free housing. Free ride on TriMet.

    posted on July 19th, 2010 at 10:22 am

  23. 23 On July 22nd, 2010, the highwayman said:

    Scott said: Public transit is for benefit to the user only.
    It cannot be equated with mass benefit or the collective such as less crime or fewer fires.

    THWM: Ok Scott, you hate society, but you’re still part of it.

    posted on July 22nd, 2010 at 3:07 am

  24. 24 On July 22nd, 2010, the highwayman said:

    Frank said: No. There is no sales tax in Oregon. He pays no sales tax, no state income tax, no federal income tax. He pays no taxes whatsoever (but again has no problem voting for tax increases on the ballot–hey, it’s not his money).

    Even if he did pay any kind of user fee or an excise tax, on a cable or a phone bill, those are not related to public transit, and he is paying them with Social Security funds. Having been in the workforce for only a few years, he is receiving far more in benefits than he ever paid in Social Security payroll taxes.

    Free money. Free food. Free housing. Free ride on TriMet.

    THWM: Ok, your friend is a slacker, though on the bright side he isn’t going around like Mr.O’Toole telling other people how to live their lives.

    posted on July 22nd, 2010 at 1:33 pm

  25. 25 On July 27th, 2010, Adam said:

    The conclusions in this piece are simply incorrect. See my detailed response to the July 22 piece (entitled “And Your Point Is?”) for a more complete response.

    posted on July 27th, 2010 at 6:17 am

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.