The efficiency of personal vehicles as opposed to bus or rail.

greenspun.com : LUSENET : I-695 Thirty Dollar License Tab Initiative : One Thread

There is NO comparison to the efficiency of a personal vehicle to bus or rail. My personal vehicle will get me from EXACTLY where I am to EXACTLY where I am going in the MINIMUM amount of time. And I can make pit stops anytime something tickle my fancy. I can even stop and get food without leaving my vehicle. I can pick up friends or relatives NO MATTER WHERE THEY MIGHT BE. I can do these things ANY TIME night or day. If I get tired I can pull over and snooze a little before I keep going. I can change my mind in mid-stream and turn around and go home. I can park and enjoy a sexual encounter if I feel like it. I can turn my radio up as loud as I want and listen to ANY KIND OF MUSIC I WANT. I don't have to get out in the middle of my trip and wait for a different car to come along so I can change directions. I don't have to LISTEN to or SMELL people I don't CHOOSE to travel with. I the route I am taking seems a little slow and crowded....I CAN CHOOSE A DIFFERNT ROUTE!!

-- maddjak (maddjak@hotmail.com), November 14, 1999

Answers

you're talking convenience, not efficiency.

-- theman (theman@wuzzup.com), November 14, 1999.

And??? What's your point? People do all that on the bus now !!! ;-)

-- Jim Cusick (jccusick@att.net), November 14, 1999.

Sure, you can do all that in you vehicle, which brings up the next round of questions: How much does that cost, on a per year basis? over 10 years? over 20? How much do 4 million people pay over that time period? How about those within in the Sound Transit boundaries? Are you getting the value you should for the difference in the costs? What are the differences, and how do you compare them?

-- Jim Cusick (jccusick@att.net), November 14, 1999.

"you're talking convenience, not efficiency. "

No. Actually he is talking efficiency. The figures I posted on the other thread are per passenger-mile. Passenger miles are frequently less on the same trip for an auto compared to transit. Transit's cover fixed routes, not necessarily the shortest distance between point A and point B. Any transfers make it HIGHLY likely that you've taken something other than an optimal course. Intermodal transfers (bus to light rail, for example), almost NEVER are the optimal path.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), November 15, 1999.


The last three years that I worked for Boeing, I rode METRO to work. It was far cheaper for me than driving my car. But that was because I paid only a small fraction of the total cost. If my fare had been enough to pay for all of the costs, it would have been cheaper to drive my car. I rode the bus because other people paid most of the cost. Yet I was a well paid employee. There was no reason for others to be paying most of my transportation costs. But they did. They didn't have any choice in the matter. Our elected representatives made the choice for them.

Thanks to all of you taxpayers who helped pay for my rides for three years! I saved enough that I retired early!

-- Art Rathjen (liberty@coastaccess.com), November 16, 1999.



Art-

There are ANY NUMBER of solid reports that back up what you say. Transit has been embraced as a religion by many, not as either the safety net for the transit dependent or as a transportation niche that is sometimes appropriate due to local geographic and demographic factors. It has been pushed WELL BEYOND the limits of cost- effectiveness, and frequently subsidizes quite well-to-do people from taxes paid for by the less well-to-do. Commuter rail is especially notorius for this, and has been controlled in LA by court order since it was HURTING the transit dependent by sucking money from the bus system that served the poor to pay for the heavy rail that served the upper middle class.

From the Brookings Institute:

http://www.brook.edu/views/articles/winston/19990826.htm

THE POLITICS OF URBAN TRANSPORTATION It's no secret why government can't cope with transit inefficiencies: Policy makers (appropriately) respond more to political forces rather than market forces. Although government subsidies largely accrue to transit managers and suppliers of transit labor and capital in the form of higher wages, profits and interest payments, a portion does go to the popular causes of keeping fares below cost and expanding service beyond the level that could be supported without subsidies. Probably more important, these public benefits are enjoyed by groups with influence disproportionate to their numbers - high-income commuters, business developers and so on. Shirley and I estimate that more than 80 percent of the waste from sub-optimal urban transit fares and frequencies can be attributed to these political influences. Transit inefficiencies might be more easily overlooked if they redistributed income from the well-to-do to the poor, but this is not the case. Everyone gets something from the grab bag: transit managers and workers get higher wages, while lower- and middle-income bus riders get more frequent service. Upper middle- income rail riders cash-in through more frequent service and greater route coverage. With the average annual household income of bus commuters approaching $40,000 and the average annual household income of rail commuters exceeding $50,000, the poor are hardly transit's greatest beneficiaries. Indeed, since the tax burden created by transit subsidies takes a larger portion of income from the poor than from the rich, it is clear that public transit is increasing - not decreasing - inequality.

Additional inefficiencies in the public sector arise because rail and bus companies do not minimize the cost of producing a given level of service - as the high proportion of empty transit seats attests. During the mid-1990's rail filled roughly 18 percent of its seats with paying customers, while bus filled roughly 14 percent. In contrast, about one-third of auto's carrying capacity is typically filled. These differences in capacity utilization have clear implications for mass transit's cost competitiveness with autos. While transit's average operating costs per seat mile are lower than auto's, this potential cost advantage is never realized in practice because empty seats drive its operating costs per passenger mile much higher than auto's.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), November 16, 1999.


Craig, still spoken like an engineer and an economist. you're not looking at all of the costs. I listed off 7 or so reports that showed a subsidy of private auto use nearing 2.5 trillion dollars. transit in no way is subisdized to that extent. now lets get this straight, total costs. I know it's a stretch, but I think you can do it. You can go ahead and site your federal beurocratic sites. You never responded to my previous statement that the feds have a vested interest in keeping us auto dependent and they can skew the statistics.

as far as the above thread goes, yes it is a convenience issue and not an efficiency issue. Maddjak writes, "And I can make pit stops anytime something tickle my fancy,I can do these things ANY TIME night or day, If I get tired I can pull over and snooze a little before I keep going, I can park and enjoy a sexual encounter if I feel like it, I can turn my radio up as loud as I want and listen to ANY KIND OF MUSIC I WANT, I don't have to LISTEN to or SMELL people I don't CHOOSE to travel with."

go ahead and tell me that a sexual encounter in his car is about efficiency. Oh wait you'll probably say that maddjak would have to ride the bus all day until it emptied then he and his boyfriend could finally be alone in the back of the bus. that would be a huge waste of resources.

-- theman (theman@wuzzup.com), November 17, 1999.


"Craig, still spoken like an engineer and an economist. you're not looking at all of the costs." Yes, as a matter of fact I am. I cited a reference that went over all those issues in great detail. The only way the per capita costs of autos come anywhere near the per capita costs of transit is to include the private costs of ownership of the vehicles including their parking spaces at their owners residences, etc. with the public costs of transit.

"I listed off 7 or so reports that showed a subsidy of private auto use nearing 2.5 trillion dollars." These were hogwash, including "social costs" that have estimates all over the landscape. The fallacies and inconsistencies of these were pointed out in the USDOT sponsored paper that I cited. But even assuming if it were true, the fact that autos are being subsidized would not be a justification to subsidize transit. It would only be a justification to stop subsidizing autos.

"transit in no way is subisdized to that extent now lets get this straight, total costs." Actually, the federal figures show transit receiving about 15% of the federal transportation funds for all motor vehicles. Given that most of the money comes from fuel taxes paid for by the autos, and autos log 49 TIMES the passenger miles, That's about SEVEN TIMES what it ought to be getting. Of course the subsidies for cars are for roadways that TRANSIT ALSO USES, so the real transit subsidy is somewhat higher than those figures suggest. As I already gave you, the local figures for King County indicate that for the (pre-695) six-year capital improvement budget, roads got only 40% of what was given for transit. Transit also got a $200,000 year operating budget in subsidies as well. By NO STRETCH of the imagination do subsidies for cars approach subsidies for transit. Total costs (largely paid for by the auto owners) of cars clearly exceed cost for transit, and no wonder, autos account for 98% of the passenger miles.

"I know it's a stretch, but I think you can do it. You can go ahead and site your federal beurocratic sites. You never responded to my previous statement that the feds have a vested interest in keeping us auto dependent and they can skew the statistics. " Indded I did, if you look above. I said on another thread (with some trepidation) that I'd bite, go ahead and tell me what conspiracy theory you are referring to. There are so many of them, I can't respond until you tell me which conspiracy theory you're referring to.

As for your trashing of maddjak, he can handle you without my help. As the post above yours indicates, it IS a matter of efficiency, but you are right, it's a convenience issue to. Transit is inconvenient as Hell for most of the US population and, nationwide, time spent commuting by transit is almost twicethat of commuting by auto, in part due to transfers and waiting for pickup.

SUMMARY OF TRAVEL TRENDS 1995 NATIONWIDE PERSONAL TRANSPORTATION SURVEY Table 25

1983 1990 1995 1983 1990 1995 1983 1990 1995 1983 1990 1995 ALL MODES Private Public Transit Other Average Commute Trip Length (miles) 8.54 10.65 11.63 8.86 11.02 11.84 11.81 12.75 12.88 1.35 2.15 8.15 Average Commute Travel Time (minutes) 18.20 19.60 20.65 17.62 19.05 20.10 39.77 41.10 41.95 10.58 12.41 18.82 Average Commute Speed (miles per hour) 28.17 33.33 33.80 30.18 34.74 35.36 17.82 18.23 19.29 7.63 7.61 25.89

Get some facts and come on bac

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), November 17, 1999.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ