Here are some numbers to think about. The European numbers are from Panorama of Transport, published by the European Union. The U.S. numbers are from the National Transit Database and National Transportation Statistics.
As of 2004, page 23 of Panorama says that 137 cities in the EU-25 had light rail or streetcars (trams), compared with just 27 in the U.S. (including vintage trolleys). Thirty EU-25 cities had what the Europeans call “metros,” including what we would call subways, elevateds, and commuter rail, compared with 14 in the U.S.
Page 102 of Panorama says Europeans traveled 75 billion passenger kilometers by tram and metro in 2004. That’s about 46.6 billion passenger miles. Americans traveled 25.6 billion passenger miles by commuter, light, and heavy rail.
The helpful methods would be penile implants viagra 20mg cipla or vacuum devices. This is a serious disease that generic viagra can kill a relation between wife and husband. Maintain ideal body weight – Obesity is one of the foremost buy viagra unica-web.com breast cancer causes Doctors and healthcare practitioners are of the view that the increased usage of this drug among the younger generation could be due for recreational reasons or for sex enhancement.Performance anxiety is also a big reason for erectile dysfunction. generic viagra 50mg It is known for increasing fertility and libido in long run.
Elsewhere, Eurostat says the EU-25 had 459.2 million people in 2004. The Census Bureau says the U.S. population in 2004 was 293.2 million.
This means those train-happy Europeans traveled an average of 102 miles by rail transit. The average auto-addicted American traveled 87 miles by rail transit in 2004. Meanwhile, the average American traveled 15,200 miles by car, while the average European traveled just 6,000.
To be fair, we have to include intercity rail, which Europeans used for 770 475 miles of travel (only about 20 percent of which was high-speed rail); Americans for just 19. Also, Europeans rode buses for 1,090 680 miles; Americans for 565 miles. And, in case you are wondering, the average American flew 1,900 miles; Europeans averaged 1,050 650. Update: Forgot to convert the European kilometers in this paragraph to miles.
Are you willing to give up 9,200 miles of driving and 1,250 miles of air travel in order to get 470 more miles of rail travel and 115 more miles of bus riding?
One stat that AP doesn’t provide is land area: EU25 4 million sq km, USA 10 million.
Thus the EU25’s population density is four times greater than the USA, or two times if we exclude the virtually unihabited states such as Montana and Nth Dakota. Not surprisingly, when bus energy consumption per pkt is compared buses in the EU25 are twice as efficient as American buses. That’s consistent with buses being having twice as many people living along each km of their route.
From that foundation it is reasonable to assume that population density means that the average EU25 resident can satisfy the purposes of daily travel by travelling only half the distance that the average American travel. Thus all of the EU mileages cited by AP can be doubled resulting in AP’s final question becoming:
Are you willing to give up 3,200 real miles of driving and 0 real miles of air travel in order to get 1500 more real miles of rail travel and 1000 more real miles of bus riding?
A real difference of 700 miles per year less real travel, just two miles per day. Since the EU stats make no mention of walking and cycling it is entirely possible that these modes of transport account for the missing miles. With so many traditional villages that would even be a pleasant difference rather than the elbow jostling image conjured up by our over-exposure to big city based media.
Kevyn Miller wrote:
> Thus the EU25’s population density is four times greater than the
> USA, or two times if we exclude the virtually unihabited states such
> as Montana and Nth Dakota.
Though a friend of mine put it very well when he pointed out that
densities don’t ride transit.
And if you go to places like Sweden and Finland, you will find massive
amounts of open space. Even the UK, which is pretty densely populated,
there are plenty of wide open spaces in Scotland.
> Not surprisingly, when bus energy consumption per pkt is compared
> buses in the EU25 are twice as efficient as American buses. That’s
> consistent with buses being having twice as many people living along
> each km of their route.
Though there is proportionately much greater private sector
operation of transit generally and transit buses in particular in
the EU than in the United States. Nations like Sweden, Finland and
the UK have made policy decisions to allow the private sector to
provide much or all of the transit bus service offered there, and
that may be part of the reason for better transit bus utilization.
“Are you willing to give up 9,200 miles of driving and 850 miles of air travel in order to get 750 more miles of rail travel and 500 more miles of bus riding?”
Sorry for being crude, but the logic here is pretty retarded. More driving doesn’t mean we are getting any further, it just means we live further away from everything and have to compensate for it.
In the US we HAVE TO DRIVE so much extra because everything is so disparately far away from our homes. We have cities like Houston where there is no other option but to drive… where people live in places like Sienna Plantation that require you to drive as much as 4.5 miles from your cul-de-sac in a cul-de-sac in a cul-de-sac before you can even exit the development and start looking for your favorite stores, jobs, etc. I bet the kids love it.
So, YES, I would trade all that driving because I would know that I was using land more efficiently, I’d be responsible for less road infrastructure and maintenance, I’d probably live close enough to walk or bike at least somewhere, I wouldn’t depend on fluctuating gas prices or a perhaps-unreliable vehicle, but I could still have my car in the garage for a fun weekend trip as I please.
Though a friend of mine put it very well when he pointed out that
densities don’t ride transit.
You should tell your friend to do more research.
Why?
Because density provides nearby services, which can be walked to. KingCo in WA doesn’t send bus service to, IIRC, less than 6 DU/ac.
DS
“Are you willing to give up 9,200 miles of driving and 850 miles of air travel in order to get 750 more miles of rail travel and 500 more miles of bus riding?”
I would love to have the option to do so. Maybe I’ll move to a place that has transit one day. But hallelujah to Dan and hkelly1 for articulating it for me. Ideally I would like to travel less overall not trade one for another.
Another difference between the socialist other-regardings and Murrica:
Butbutbut!!!! The elderly who can’t drive can just use their caaaaaaaars! to get around! Surely there is a private soluuuuution! Enough of subsidizing those that came before us and built everythiiiiiiiing for us! Everyone for themseeeeeelves!
DS
We have [places] where there is no other option but to drive… where people live in places … that require you to drive as much as 4.5 miles from your cul-de-sac in a cul-de-sac in a cul-de-sac before you can even exit the development and start looking for your favorite stores, jobs, etc. I bet the kids love it.
One wonders whether public health folks have done studies in places like Wylie, TX and if the vast single-use zoning-caused isolation drove kids to boredom and drug use.
Butbutbut that’s what the market chose! Kid’s alienation is what the maaaarket wants!
DS
Dan:
They have some studies on this:
http://www.boingboing.net/2007/01/22/does-sprawl-make-us-.html
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/feature/id/8139/title/Weighing_In_on_City_Planning (need a subscription for the journal)
Looks like those in cul-de-sacs weight 10 lbs more in some places compared to mixed-use areas. Knowing that unhealthy people have externalities on all of society, should we tax them proportionally?
Comparing America and Europe is apples and oranges. It’s like the asinine assumptions made by some people regarding car use in Europe. Yes, for motorized trips, the automobile is used for a good amount of trips in Europe; but biking and walking constitute almost 50% of all trips in some European cities.
ws,
Fellow alum Larry Frank, IMO, is the man for all externalities on sprawl (SMARTRAQ, in the Boingboing). But way back when, Wylie TX was a hotbed of young white drug use. The isolation there was palpable and I’m wondering if there’s a study on Wylie-type isolation and underachievement.
DS
The view from Europe. Let’s see. Yesterday I had to “suit up” so I did the walk-partway-take-the-tram-partway routine in the morning. And the same in reverse in the evening. Today was casual so I rode the fixie both ways. Probably do the same tomorrow.
“… giving up 9,200 miles of driving”? Already have and would hate like hell to have that back again.
C.P. “densities don’t ride transit”. Does your friend’s witchdoctor mumbo-jumbo include “dollars don’t drive autos” to dismiss the the nonsense that per capita wealth determines per capita auto ownership.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CSdJFrH3Q9A
Of course the most interesting part is market share.
Based on earlier data, transit’s share of passenger- kilometers is only a little higher in the EU than in the USA and dropping fast.
See http://www.portlandfacts.com/Transit/EuroTranistShareLoss.htm
Thanks
JK
Of course the most interesting part is that JK thinks there is a market for passenger-km rather than a market for trips. A vacation trip can be more rewarding simply because it is longer, but a longer commute or shopping journey isn’t inherently more beneficial than a shorter one.
Defining transit’s market share in terms of passenger/km instead of passengers carried makes as much sense as defining GM’s market share in terms of vehicle/km instead of vehicles sold.
Kevyn,
Showing numbers the way you disparage has the benefit of obfuscating the fact that trips in Yurp are inherently shorter for the most part, as stuff is closer to your house.
DS
Kevyn Miller
Transportation costs and benefits are obviously a matter of both the number of passengers and the distance of travel. That is why passenger-miles (in Europe, passenger-km) is the standard measure for modal comparisons in government reports and academic literature. Trips is a relevant statistic in some contexts, but it’s not a useful measure of overall benefit. A trip of thousands of miles to Europe for a vacation obviously provides far more benefit than a trip of a quarter-mile to the grocery store to buy some milk.
You claim that “a longer commute or shopping journey isn’t inherently more beneficial than a shorter one.” But people wouldn’t be willing to pay the extra cost of longer trips if they didn’t get a commensurate benefit. Workers wouldn’t be willing to pay the extra costs of long commutes unless they got a benefit in return, such as cheaper housing or a higher-paying job. Shoppers wouldn’t be willing to pay the extra costs of long shopping trips unless they too got some benefit in return, such as lower prices or greater selection.
Rivlin, I used ‘inherently’ because I meant inherently. Hence the argument in your second paragraph is precisely the point I was making. If the time and monetary cost of travelling greater distances results in greater savings, or delivers perceived benefits such as greater choice or quality, then there is a nett benefit from travelling further – otherwise there is a nett cost. The paradigm you are describing has been with us since the agricultural revolution delivered the first dramatic reduction in transport costs (in energy, dollars, time, land use, etc). That paradigm will continue only so long as we can continue to shift to ever lower cost energy sources for transportation. If we can’t do that then peak oil will eventually deliver a paradigm shift. Possibly a return to the limited travel paradigm that existed when it took too much land to sustain horses cost effectively, but more likely to a ‘virtual travel’ paradigm where WiFi become the autos of the 21st century.
Whilst transportation costs are obviously a matter of both the number of passengers and the distance of travel, that is simply not true for the nett benefits.
The fact that government reports and academic literature routinely use an inapropriate measures is no excuse for perpetuating the error. A similar error is made in most assessments of wind and solar energy wherein measures of the amount of energy purchased is referred to as energy consumed and thus leading to the erroneous conclusion that wind and solar make insignificant contributions to meeting America’s energy needs when they in fact provide an overwhelming majority of the energy used for heating, cooling and lighting.
If you need milk for your cereal then a trip of thousands of miles to Europe for a vacation obviously provides far less benefit than a trip of a quarter-mile to the grocery store to buy some milk. The benefit of any trip is that it satisfies a need. As long as that need is satisfied the distance of the trip is entirely irrelevant.
Is travelling thousands of km to Europe for a vacation more beneficial than travelling hundreds of km to Grand Canyon? The answer depends entirely on the individuals wants/needs.
Kevyn Miller,
Rivlin, I used ‘inherently’ because I meant inherently.
There’s no such thing as an “inherent” benefit of a trip. A trip is worth whatever benefit it provides to the traveler. If longer trips did not provide greater benefit than shorter ones, people wouldn’t be willing to pay the higher costs of longer trips. Commuters would not be willing to pay the higher fuel and time costs of longer commutes unless they were getting a commensurate benefit in return, such as a higher-paying job or cheaper housing. This is why “number of trips” alone is not a meaningful measure of transportation benefit. The standard measure of transportation benefit is passenger-miles, because the benefit is a matter of both the number of travellers and the distance of travel.
If longer trips did not provide greater benefit than shorter ones, people wouldn’t be willing to pay the higher costs of longer trips.
This flawed logic presumes rational utility maximizing agents are 100% rational agents 100% of the time. This tired ideology doesn’t work on the ground, and folks make tradeoffs to obtain what society impels them to obtain. The most common tradeoffs being health and time.
There are many branches of study better able to describe choice than old neoclassical models; in the econ group, behavioral econ is much more cogent at explaining trip choice.
DS
This flawed logic presumes rational utility maximizing agents are 100% rational agents 100% of the time.
No it doesn’t. It presumes only that people generally behave rationally with respect to costs and benefits. Or do you seriously believe that people generally choose to pay more for no additional benefit?
Or do you seriously believe that people generally choose to pay more for no additional benefit?
People are only sometimes rational (Enlightenment rational). But on the ground folk are giving up benefits for housing, as that is often the sole investment vehicle for many.
But your argumentation attempts to portray vacation trips as equal to a trip to the baker, costs and benefits are easily apprehended, and in addition trying to assert that there are no adverse effects on environmental health with longer trips. It also suffers from informational asymmetry, in that only 25% of trips are work trips.
Trip lengths are a direct function of the built environment, and if more housing was available closer to amenities, then you’d see fewer vehicle trips, which is exactly what you see on the ground, and exactly what you see in preference surveys – that is: more and more people seek amenities closer to home and are willing to pay for such a development.
DS
People are only sometimes rational
We’ve been over this. In general, people are not going to pay the extra costs in time and gasoline to drive 10 miles instead than 1 mile unless they receive some commensurate benefit in return for those higher costs. That doesn’t mean every trip choice by every individual is rational. It means only that in general people will not incur a greater cost unless they get a greater benefit in return.
But your argumentation attempts to portray vacation trips as equal to a trip to the baker
Nothing I have written “attempts to portray vacation trips as equal to a trip to the baker.”
Trip lengths are a direct function of the built environment, and if more housing was available closer to amenities, then you’d see fewer vehicle trips, which is exactly what you see on the ground, and exactly what you see in preference surveys – that is: more and more people seek amenities closer to home and are willing to pay for such a development.
More irrelevance. I dispute your claim about the trend in housing and lifestyle preferences, but it’s irrelevant to my point anyway. If people choose to buy houses further away from amenities, and incur higher transportation costs as a result, it is because they receive an additional benefit that compensates for those higher costs, such as lower house prices. If they didn’t get that additional benefit, they’d have no reason to buy distant houses rather than closer ones.
When Greasemonkey comes to this site, I’ll lump the Scott/Rivkin sockpuppet axis into the ‘can’t argue crazy’ category and hit [killfile]. But until then I’ll simply enact [ignore].
DS
Dan, What’s crazy?
Dan, for #22 did you consult the dictionary again to sound brainy, but actually made no point to the issue being addressed.
Again you have not refuted anybody’s points, while you try, but end up with distractions, misdirections, fallacies, illogic, labeling & other propaganda techniques.
I’m trying to empathize with your thinking process that just does not understand certain concepts. You should really stay away from topics in which you have a sketchy knowledge of. Just because you have read certain articles does not mean that you understand. You have evidence of that by not stating any ideas, but in referring to others’ ideas.
My guess is that you are trying to support any government action & principle.
You are not even clear on your positions & just try to obfuscate.
The gov got us into this recession. Although, it was not Bush. I don’t like him, but I like justice & will defend a person falsely accused.
Congress can be blamed, especially the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.
Banks can be blamed for making bad decisions, but were pushed by Congress.
Local politics can be blamed in some markets for not allowing more construction.
Scott, you benefit vastly more from government than Dan or I, so stop acting like such a prima donna.
You & Dan could have benefited from too by not dropping out of the public education system.
How do you think that I benefited more from the government?
You’re calling me a prima donna when you both make some big assumptions all of the time.
Actually I’m not sure what you mean in reference to prima donna. Maybe you guys seem belittled when my concepts are over guys’ heads.
It’s not just me. I see your responses to others’ comments, and you guys are usually on some different track & rarely respond appropriately to address the point. You’re just off in your own worlds.
Scott you complain a lot for nothing.
No body wants to pry your steering wheel out of your cold dead hands.
Freedom comes with a price and you must learn to accept that.