The American Public Transportation Association (APTA) has a solution to the high cost of living: make other taxpayers subsidize your lifestyle. Specifically, APTA reports that people can save $9,000 a year by riding public transit instead of driving.
What APTA doesn’t mention is that transit appears inexpensive only because most of the cost of transit is paid by non-transit riders. In 2007, subsidies to transit average 66 cents per passenger mile.
To calculate the $9,000 annual savings, APTA assumes that people would substitute transit for 15,000 miles of driving each year. At 66 cents per mile, that works out to $10,000 of subsidies to save $9,000 in costs. Not only are transit riders making other people subsidize them, they are making other people pay more in subsidies than the former auto drivers are saving.
Some of APTA’s numbers are a little suspect. At $9,000 in savings per year, APTA presumes that driving 15,000 miles costs 60 cents a mile. According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, Americans spent $968 billion buying and operating motor vehicles in 2007, while the Department of Transportation says they drove those vehicles about 2.8 trillion miles.
That works out to about 35 cents per vehicle mile. This means someone substituting transit for 15,000 miles of driving would save only about $5,250 a year — while making someone else pay $10,000 to subsidize their travel.
Natural products deliver same, or better results. tablet sildenafil You may experience the canada viagra cialis following: Headaches Back pain Stuffy nose Facial flushing These side effects are uncommon if users take the medication as recommended as well as stick to the required dosage. This can lead to getting viagra online erectile dysfunction, premature ejaculation and low sexual desire. The chief and outstanding gain behind this is that this way the active ingredient enters the system quicker and that http://appalachianmagazine.com/2018/0/page/10/ purchase cheap cialis it shows better results.
APTA overestimated the cost of driving because it used the AAA estimate of the average cost of driving. AAA assume that everyone buys a car new, pays the maximum finance charges, and replaces it as soon as it is paid off. Obviously, many people save money by buying used cars, paying cash instead of finance charges, and keeping them longer than five years.
It gets worse. The average car has 1.6 people in it, so 15,000 miles of driving is really 24,000 passenger miles. The subsidies required to support 24,000 passenger miles of transit usage amount to nearly $16,000 per year. That means APTA’s hypothetical household is getting as much as $16,000 in subsidies but saving only a little more than $5,000, for a net social loss of more than $10,000 per year.
(Of course, someone will point out that highways are subsidized too. But such subsidies average less than a penny per passenger mile, or in this case under $240 dollars. That’s a rounding error for the subsidies required to support transit.)
On top of that, transit is almost always slower and reaches fewer destinations than driving. Presumably, someone would use transit only when it was convenient and use their car for trips where transit simply didn’t work. But transit is almost always less convenient than driving, so anyone giving up a car for transit is going to end up spending more time en route and less time at their destinations.
If it were not for the inconvenience, however, making other people pay for your transportation would be a great way to save money.
JK: few comments:
1. I compared the AAA cost with the real cost at: http://www.portlandfacts.com/aaa_method.htm
2. For shorts trips cars are actually even cheaper than subsidized transit fares. For instance, a $2.00 transit fare will pay for a 10 mile (one way) trip at an incremental cost for a car at $0.20/mile (which is actually high.) This means, in Portland terms, that you actually spend less money on your average USA car than transit fare traveling from inner SE (the center of Portland’s progressive crowd) to Beaverton. And about the same to travel to Greshem. In either case, you can expect to save time in your car and NOT be exposed to gangland drug deals, intimidation, mugings and other crimes. Driving to Vancouver and Milwauke (two proposed toy train lines) are also cheaper than transit fare.
3. Highway subsidies can be found at:
portlandfacts.com/roadsubsidy.htm
portlandfacts.com/Roads/Docs/Delucchi_Chart.htm
4. Elderly find driving easier than transit. portlandfacts.com/elderly%20travel.html
And transit uses more energy per passenger-mile than small cars. portlandfacts.com/transit/busvscartedb.htm
Once again, can someone explain the social good of subsidized transit for everyone (we all know about the welfare aspect of transit which MAY be better handled by straight welfare for the needy)
And don’t miss the ADC videos at : portlandfacts.com/video-2007adc.html
Thanks
JK
The Antiplanner wrote:
> On top of that, transit is almost always slower and reaches fewer destinations than driving.
> Presumably, someone would use transit only when it was convenient and use their car for trips
> where transit simply didn’t work. But transit is almost always less convenient than driving,
> so anyone giving up a car for transit is going to end up spending more time en route and
> less time at their destinations.
And even among people that use transit – even regular transit patrons – many of
them park their car at a park-and-ride lot and then take the bus or some sort of rail
transit. And in more than a few cases, the people parking their cars at the transit stations
have to pay to park there.
I have seen park-and-ride lots at transit stations in places as diverse as Virginia, Maryland,
California, New Jersey, New York (state), Ontario, Finland and Sweden.
To read more about park-and-ride lots in the EU nations, click here (Adobe Acrobat
.pdf file, 166 KB).
[Cont’d.]
A page that discusses park-and-ride facilities for bus patrons in the UK can be found on the
Department for Transport’s site here.
… and speaking of park-and-ride facilities, this was on the WTOP Radio Web site this morning about park-and-rides at Washington-area Metrorail stations:
3-wheeler lets Metro cops look for thieves
Note that in this context, “Metro cops” means WMATA’s own Transit Police force.
I wonder what the pragmatists will say to these numbers? After all, they know what they want, and they will claim it at any cost.
I’m indifferent to public transit. (Not entirely true, I’d rather cycle 15 miles than ride a bus). BUT (of course) I have no problem subsidizing the bus for a family below poverty to get to work (and school, and etc) so they can ring up my order at the 7-11.
Who here opposes subsidized transportation because it is ineffective, and who opposes it because it is a subsidy?
We can stop subsidizing transit when we stop subsidizing autos. The true cost of automobile ridership is very low and higher costs made to auto drivers will put more people on to transit.
ws We can stop subsidizing transit when we stop subsidizing autos.
JK: Total autop subsides ate tiny,. if at all. See:
ws The true cost of automobile ridership is very low
JK: Correct
.
ws and higher costs made to auto drivers will put more people on to transit.
JK: Why would any sane person want to increase overall cost, increase energy consumptions, waste people’s time and increase CO2 emissions by moving people out of cars to transit (I just threw in CO2 for the Al Gore zombies.)
Thanks
JK
t g:
I oppose because it is a subsidy. Principle trumps pragmatism. But you knew that would be my reply. 🙂
Mike, I did figure that’d be your reply.
I always get this sense that the AP is working a Populist angle too, that he wants lower home prices for the middle class, that THAT is his real goal, “noble” as it is. Just wondering where he stands…
(I may be misinterpreting the populist theme. I’ll have to revisit some of last year’s posts.)
ws said: We can stop subsidizing transit when we stop subsidizing autos.
THWM: Well said WS, I don’t worry about the street infront of my house isn’t profitable and I don’t worry about my local transit system isn’t profitable either.
Thanks TransitMan. That is the 57th time you have mentioned your theory that the road in front of your house is suppose to cover its operating cost (whatever that means), and if it doesn’t, it is only fair that transit can spend an infinite amount of funds. We heard that idea and anyone who agrees with you lost their house and internet connection.
By the way, your idea that thousands of miles of rail lines is missing is being investigated by the FBI X-Files Division.
Why thanks asshole!
Big assumption here. My commute before moving a half mile from work was 22 miles a day. That times five times 52 equates to 5720 miles per year. (Although I’m a teacher and don’t drive to work two months out of the year.)
Absolutely. According to Trimet, my 20-minute, one-way drive to work would take 81 minutes (including 11 minutes walking and 18 minutes waiting). Double that and subtract my 40-minute total commute, and that’s two hours of my day wasted. I already work 10 to 12 hours a day.
So taking transit to work will save maybe 5,000 miles per year and take 500 more hours (20 days) per year. But what about the rest of the mileage?
I took transit for years in Portland, and hauling groceries on the bus or MAX is impracticable and difficult, especially for those with physical limitations.
Some of the rest of the “15,000 miles of driving each year”? Taking “transit” (the bus or Amtrak) from Portland to Seattle, while possibly subsidized, is still more expensive than driving and comes with the same extreme inconvenience as taking the bus or MAX to work.
And how would one get from Portland to Mount Jefferson Wilderness or Mount Adams or Mount Hood on transit? A sizable chunk of my annual mileage (significantly lower than the 15,000 the APTA references) is comprised of such trips. Transit isn’t going to help me there, so giving up driving would limit me to staying in the city. Not worth any “savings”, real or imagined.
The real key to saving money isn’t taking transit. It’s living closer to work and driving fewer total miles. I’ve gone from two cars to one and my annual commute is now 90 miles. Rent is cheaper in the suburbs, so that has increased my savings by nearly $3500 annually. And if my car dies, I can walk to the store and work until I can save up enough money for a replacement so I can continue making trips to the Gorge, Mt. Hood, the Coast, and so on.
That’s how I saved my thousands.
Who here opposes subsidized transportation because it is ineffective, and who opposes it because it is a subsidy?
If you’re referring to public transit, I would put myself firmly in the former category.
The reality is that most of the subsidy dollars are not going to the poverty-stricken individual working at the 7-11. Instead, they’re going to the insurance or finance executive working downtown and taking a higher quality/cost train or bus to their downtown workplace. I do not feel as sympathetic toward this person.
Nationwide, about 4.4 percent of workers do not have vehicles available (2008 ACS). The comparable figure for transit users is around 1/3. The other two-thirds are not quite as needy, but certainly more politically influential.
Public transit systems already have fare media that can distinguish different classes of users. How hard would it be to develop something similar for poor or elderly users?
That’s funny to see this. Just the other day I was thinking “If this damn Wells Fargo ATM tells me that RTD claims I can save $9500 / year by using it I’m going to puke on the machine”.
There are all sorts of issues with cost estimates of driving. At the root is that there are per mile costs and other costs based on time. Trying to turn time costs into per mile costs gets very tricky, at best. For example, if I don’t drive my car I still have to pay insurance each month. I also still have to make my car payments. While it does put off some per mile costs, such as when I’m going to change out the alternator, it doesn’t completely eliminate them. While my car’s manufacturer suggests that I change my oil every 7500 miles, if I were driving on rare occasions I still should change it once every 6 months to ensure water doesn’t build up in the system. The problem is that short of not owning a car, those costs will exist.
And of course the cost of ownership varies widely. There’s a big difference between the cost of owning a Kia Soul and a HOnda Pilot let alone a Porsche Cayenne. Any cost of ownership estimates that use averaging that includes higher priced vehicles, let alone high priced luxury vehicles, aren’t reflecting the actual costs of ownership but the costs people have chosen to have not to just have a car but to have a nice or even luxury vehicle. That is important when talking about costs of ownership. For example, Yahoo estimates the 5 year ownership cost of a new Cayenne at @$82k. The Pilot, naturally depends on the model, is @$55k. The Soul is about $33k. Average those together and it’s about $56k for 5 year cost of ownership. This despite that the Soul would be good enough for most owners daily use has a 5 year ownership of $33k. That is, people have chosen those higher costs. If they’re looking to save money, why use transit when a different vehicle would save much more?
Anyway….
The APTA relied on best- (or worst-) case conditions to contrive their scenario?
Shocking!
Steven Hayward wrote in a 1998 Policy Review that “nearly 80 percent of all new jobs are being generated” in the suburbs. If job growth is anything now like it was then, there are a lot of people not well-served by transit. The solution, as some would argue, is not, in my mind, to swell transit infrastructure by magnifying a ruinously cost-ineffective model.
With its many lakes, hills, and other bodies of water, my city of Seattle is a difficult place for transit, which has not stopped its transportation eschatologists from trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. That the personal automobile might offer the best balance of convenience and cost is a blasphemous consideration never weighed by local officials, who are prepared to spend any amount of other people’s money on billion-dollar transit projects that carry a negligible percentage of local transit share.
Seattleites and suburbians in 3 counties are currently saddled with a sales tax meant to pay off more than $20 billion (for capital costs alone) for a limited LR network that travels on one N/S axis and one E/W axis. Its limited N/S line unveiling was projected by local officials to carry 107,000 boardings; instead it carried 12,000 its opening weekend and has been declining ever since. “The problem is that we need more of it” has been the mantra from all the end-timeser rail/transit nuts.
If everybody lived and worked downtown, as many planners would like, their models would function. Until they achieve their forced high-density nightmare regime, many of us will just have to live with its groundwork. I rode transit for a year from suburb to my job in another suburb, which took 3 hours each day. I now drive, which has cut my commute time literally in half for only tens of extra dollars per month (despite subsidies, monthly bus passes aren’t exactly free). In the meantime, sales, use, and property taxes go up every year to bankroll new gold-plated transit projects offering mediocre service to a barely distinguishable demographic.
Frank::“The real key to saving money isn’t taking transit. It’s living closer to work and driving fewer total miles. I’ve gone from two cars to one and my annual commute is now 90 miles. Rent is cheaper in the suburbs, so that has increased my savings by nearly $3500 annually. And if my car dies, I can walk to the store and work until I can save up enough money for a replacement so I can continue making trips to the Gorge, Mt. Hood, the Coast, and so on.”
ws:I don’t know why you’re complaining, because you have just described what planners want people to do; work closer to work and have the ability to walk to places. The issue is you many people won’t be able to live close to their work and amenities if we sprawl. It’s a pretty simple concept.
Your annual commute is 90 miles?…Either you don’t commute much to work or you need to walk more. Just sayin’.
MJ said: The reality is that most of the subsidy dollars are not going to the poverty-stricken individual working at the 7-11. Instead, they’re going to the insurance or finance executive working downtown and taking a higher quality train or bus to their downtown workplace. I do not feel as sympathetic toward this person.
THWM: Executives?
prk166 said: For example, if I don’t drive my car I still have to pay insurance each month.
THWM: Why do that? http://milemeter.com/
Now you’re pissing me off, Highwayman…Milemeter is only offered in TEXAS!
It’s an example, if we had a fair market you could get it in your area.
I’m not complaining at all. I’m describing the personal decision I made to shorten my lengthy commute. If people want to drive, they should have the freedom to choose. I chose not to drive that much to work. There is sprawl, but I made the personal decision to live close to my job.
And you’re not “just sayin'”; you’re trying to tell me how to live my life and being condescending in the process.
Highwayman, just for the record, that was not Karlockian pissed off. That was merely the consequence of you teasing me with a too-good-to-be-true insurance offer.
Frank:“And you’re not “just sayin’â€; you’re trying to tell me how to live my life and being condescending in the process.”
ws: I never told you how to live your life anywhere in my post. I questioned your point about driving 90 miles total for your annual commute. You can drive 5 feet to work for all I care (who’s going to stop you?). But I’m still going to make fun of someone who does that.
Yes, my post was condescending, but rightfully so. Let’s do the math:
-90 total annual commute miles
-240 work days in a year (you never said you didn’t work 5 days a week in my last post, so I am going to assume so).
-480 total to/from work trips
This means your average distance from your work to home is 990 feet. That’s a bit more than three football fields. In one day, you travel a bit more than a quarter of a mile to get to/from work. You are admitting that you drive 990 feet to get to work. Unless you have some serious disability, which you probably don’t because you said you would walk if your car broke down, my question is:
Why the hell do you drive to work if the above assumptions are true? Is your walking route anti-pedestrian, or something?
False assumption. Read more closely. As a teacher, I don’t work two months out of the year, and I said as much. So the one-way distance to my work is .6 miles. My wife and I work at the same place and each have about 20-30 pounds of books and papers, plus coffee and lunch, to lug around, so we typically haul ourselves and our stuff in a car, which is not to say I don’t walk on some occasions, particularly when I don’t have to carry so much sh!t.
So please drop your self-righteous, my-lifestyle-is-better-than-yours attitude. After all, we’re the people making next-to-nothing to educate your children.
Frank:
I don’t know what to say, Frank. Even subtracting 2 months, that still equates to ~200 work-days, or 400 work/home trips. I’m going to guess you drive more than 90 miles total in a year to work if your commute is .6 miles one way. No, I did not read where you said you were a teacher, I must have missed that.
.6 miles one-way = 1.2 miles a day. 90 miles total / 1.2 = 75 days of work commute. Realistically, a teacher would have what, 180 work days in a year?
I hope you’re not a math teacher!
Estimated a half mile times about 180 teaching days a year. In a rush to post, forgot to double. Math skills are solid.
The point is that instead of commuting thousands of miles, I commute under 200 miles.
One would think that would be lauded by carbon fetishists, but nope. More hypocritical* nitpicking instead.
________________________
*Please tell me that your annual short drives (to the store, to the post office, to the bank, to whatever) don’t add up to 200 miles.
Frank:
I commended you for moving close to your work and I said that is right on line with so planners so called “wishes”. My point was that we cannot promote what you do if we sprawl like crazy. People won’t have the option that has afforded you to live close to work.
I think it’s great you live close to work. Right on. I just happened to notice that it would be downright silly that one could drive a total of 90 miles annual and not be within true, comfortable walking distance. Clearly you drive more than 90 annual miles, as stated in your post.