Americans Have A Right to Reject Automobile Dependence
The Katrina calamity in New Orleans offers an opportunity to question Americans' automobile addiction.
"Analyses of the failure of all levels of government to prevent or effectively manage the Katrina calamity in New Orleans have generally missed a crucial point. Alongside bias against poor people and African-Americans is automobile apartheid, born of fifty years of suburban sprawl. First-class citizens drive motor vehicles, second-class Americans walk, cycle, or ride public transit. Certainly many of the latter are poor, but millions more are middle-class Americans"
"Let those Americans who choose to stick to heavy-vehicle use deal with traffic congestion and high costs. Give others an opportunity to break their automobile addiction."
- Login or register to post comments
- Email this page
Related News Stories
Despite Lower Gas Prices, Americans Driving Less - Nov 21, 2008
Infrastructure Funding Boosts Likely in 2009 - Nov 18, 2008
GM Killed Mass Transit: Now it Must Help Repair it - Nov 17, 2008
U.S. Rail Renaissance - Nov 14, 2008
Has SF Opened the Door for Tax-Free Transit Benefits? - Nov 13, 2008
Americans Have A Right to Reject Automobile Dependence
Mr. Hirschhorn,
I wouldn't have posted the article myself (see http://www.planetizen.com/node/17821)
but as soon as I read it on my Sierra Club listserv, I posted it, after doing a search on Planetizen for other articles of yours - see the links I included on my submission.
Please keep up the great writing.
This country really erred in its transportation policy.
If its going to be corrected, we'll need experts like you telling us how!
Irvin Dawid, Palo Alto, CA
Sierra Club California Air Quality co-chair
Transit Math
"The Victoria Transport Policy Institute analyzed rail transit in the U.S. and found that its economic benefits ($53 billion) were roughly four times higher than the total cost of national subsidies ($12.5 billion)."
Here's the benefits breakdown:
U.S. rail transit services require about $12.5 billion annual public subsidy (total capital and operating expenses minus fares), about an extra $90 per Large Rail city resident. However, economic benefits more than repay these subsidies: rail transit services are estimated to provide $19.4 billion in annual congestion cost savings, $8.0 billion in roadway cost savings, $12.1 billion in parking cost savings, $22.6 billion in consumer cost savings, and $5.6 billion in traffic accident cost savings. Rail transit also tends to provide economic development benefits, increasing business activity and tax revenues. It can be a catalyst for community redevelopment. Additional, potentially large benefits include improved mobility for non-drivers, increased community livability and improved public health.
----
With all these "obvious" benefits why is it that not one rail passenger anywhere in the US pays for so much as their own operating costs?
An even better question..
Robert wrote: "With all these "obvious" benefits why is it that not one rail passenger anywhere in the US pays for so much as their own operating costs?"
Why don't automobile owners pay for the *full* cost of driving?
According to the Federal Highway Administration, in 2000 federal, state, and local expenditures for highway funding were $126.7 billion. While revenues from state, local, and federal taxes (fuel, vehicle and tolls) for highway purposes brought in only $97 billion. Where did the $30 billion shortfall come from??
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/onh00/onh2p10.htm
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/hs00/sdf.htm
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/hs00/ldf.htm
And oh let's not even start with the externalities.
With all these "obvious"
With all these "obvious" benefits why is it that not one rail passenger anywhere in the US pays for so much as their own operating costs?
Of course, all of those benefits relate to positive externalities, and have nothing to do with the individual passenger's cost for an individual trip. That said, of course 'estimates' like those can be substantially informed by the estimator's leanings.
Externalities
Rail transit; 9.5bn passenger miles, $12.5bn in subsidies. Let us get around to leveling the playing field with a $1.25/mi passenger rail surcharge.
Anyone who accepts Todd Litman's claims as to any positive externalities of rail transit needs a new calculator. You are correct that his overt bias affects his results. His source material for instance, the TTI annual study only found $20bn in benefits for all of transit after a $30bn public subsidy "investment."
This all stems from the original article's false assumption of "auto dependence." It is nothing more than a weak attempt to reverse the truth of the last century that automobility equals greater independence.
More on "Transit Math"
For National Transit Database (NTD) data reported for Fiscal Year 2003, the operating subsidy for all U.S. rail transit systems reporting data to the FTA was $0.16 per passenger mile (PM). The aggregate operating subsidy per PM for bus and paratransit combined was $0.57, $0.41 more than operating subsidy per PM for all rail combined.
When capital expenses exclusive of spending for system expansion are included, the aggregate FY 2003 rail subsidy increases to $0.43 per passenger mile, and aggregate subsidy for bus and paratransit combined increases to $0.70 per passenger mile, e.g., $0.27 higher than the rail figure.
IN OTHER WORDS, the extra $0.27 spent per passenger mile capital subsidy for rail capital needs -- dominated by the huge capital requirements of the New York City subway and area commuter railroads -- is still only TWO-THIRDS of the additional OPERATING ONLY aggregate national subsidy ($0.27 of $0.41) difference between rail and bus/paratransit.
IN ADDITION, the aggregate operating expense figures presented in NTD are generally skewed in favor of bus and paratransit, due primarily to the literally HUNDREDS OF RELATIVELY LOW WAGE BUS AND PARATRANSIT SYSTEMS in smaller cities and suburban jurisdictions, compared to a literal "handful" of HIGH WAGE BUT VERY PRODUCTIVE RAIL SYSTEMS.
Without rail, U.S. transit would require another $10 billion annually in operating subsidies to carry current levels of patronage (e.g., 24.6 billion annual rail PM X $0.41 added to bus PM). When capital subsidies, this annual savings narrows to about $6.6 billion for existing patronage levels.
For a summary spreadsheet of this data, see http://www.publictransit.us/ptlibrary/NTD2003summary.pdf
Michael D. Setty
Principal, Publictransit.us
http://www.publictransit.us
Transit Passenger Miles
Robert Cote needs to quadruple-check his facts before pontificating on transit and other urban topics. In nearly a decade of familiarity with Mr. Cote's comments on Usenet and most recently Planetizen, I have yet to see any evidence that he has any real understanding of the work of Todd Litman, Leroy Demery's and my work, let alone that of many others. I suppose his mis-statement of transit subsidy facts is "par for the course" for his analysis skills (sic).
After more than two years, Robert Cote also has yet to provide any substantiated evidence for his claims made on Usenet of malfeasance by Portland Tri-Met (http://www.trimet.org) in their NTD-related reporting of MAX light rail transit ridership.
A succinct summary of the National Transit Database for 2003
Summary national data direct from the FY 2003 NTD forms
Actual data from NTD reveals:
1. About $6.8 billion in Federal Transit Administration (FTA) funds were spent on transit in FY 2003; the remaining subsidies were mostly state and local sources.
2. There were approximately 8.9 billion trips, and
3. Approximately 45.7 billion passenger miles that year on all transit modes, including various forms of rail, bus, ferryboat, paratransit, etc. reporting to the FTA.
Thus the gross federal subsidy per passenger mile is about $0.15 per passenger mile, not the $1.25 erroneously claimed above by Robert Cote.
If Cote sees some flaw in this data, Cote needs to take it up with the FTA and its subcontractors who administer the NTD program, not Todd Litman (http://www.vtpi.org) or myself (www.publictransit.us).
For perhaps the seminal work on the topic of transit benefits, I recommend David Lewis and Fred Laurence Williams, "Policy and Planning as Public Choice: Mass Transit in the United States", 1999, Ashgate Publishing Company, Burlington, VT.
Michael D. Setty
Principal, Publictransit.us
http://www.publictransit.us