WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) -- Americans who use public transportation are helping save 1.4 billion gallons of gasoline each year, according to report released Tuesday by ICF International.
By riding buses, subways and trains to work each day Americans reduce the number of vehicles packing the roadways. That eliminates the need for 33.5 million barrels of oil each year, according to the report.
Households that use public transportation in lieu of cars also save money -- an average of $6,251 a year versus a household with two cars and no access to public transportation service, the report said. That figure includes the cost of maintaining two cars.
Just the fuel savings for a "public transportation household" is roughly $1,399 a year. After subtracting transit fares the savings is about $665 per year.
"The savings are dramatic," said William Millar, president of the American Public Transportation Association, a nonprofit organization in Washington that commissioned the report.
More commuters turning to buses and rail
Public transportation has seen an upsurge in recent years, with ridership up 25% since 1995, according to the study. Long-term economic growth over the past decade and increased public transit availability over the same period have helped make public transit an option for more Americans, Millar said.
In the first quarter of 2006, public transportation use increased 4% over 2005, with light-rail ridership jumping more than 11%. Areas seeing the biggest increases include those with the largest bus systems -- Los Angeles, Detroit, Houston and Seattle, according to the report.
More-frequent spikes in gasoline prices, renewed interest in energy conservation and national security worries over volatility in the oil producing regions of the world also appear to be fueling this trend more recently.
Each time the price of a gallon of gasoline hits the $3 mark there is an increase in ridership, Millar said. "When you get a spike in use because of gasoline prices some of the [new riders] stick with you," Millar said. After Hurricane Katrina when gasoline prices shot up "we saw a huge upswing in ridership," he pointed out.
The American Public Transportation Association says the report's message is clear: more people using public transportation means greater household savings and fewer barrels of oil coming from the Middle East. The oil savings pitch is a new marketing tactic for public transit groups.
If twice as many Americans had the choice of taking public transportation, the gasoline savings would likely double to 2.8 billion gallons a year, according to the group. That's because most rail service and some buses use electric power, which use much less petroleum than similar trips taken using gasoline guzzling cars.
The group wants the new Congress to help make public transportation a priority and an option for more Americans. "People can't use what they don't have access to," Millar said.
Slightly more than half of U.S citizens live within three-quarters of a mile of public transportation, a distance equal to about a 15 minute walk.
http://custom.marketwatch.com/custom/myway-com/news-story.asp?guid={06FA227D-BCBC-471B-A259-04979D6D151A}
But aren't these commuters saving money at our (tax-payers) expense??
It seems that every time this subject comes up, it is stated over and over that mass-transit does not recover its costs at the fare box. No-one could afford to ride if it did. The shortage is made up somewhere else (in the form of government subsidies) and that means you and I paid for their savings.
I always have mixed feelings when I read about another commuter service starting up or expanding operations. On the one hand, as a railfan, I'm happy that there are more trains to watch. On the otherhand, I feel I'm glad they get to enjoy my tax money. [insert sarcastic smiley here].
Who do you think pays for the roads you drive on? Either way, the commuters aren't paying the full cost for their trip into work. Roads are, if anything, even more subsidized than public transportation because other than a few toll roads, commuters pay none of the cost directly (there is indirect funding through the gas tax, but even that is not a perfect way to allocate costs for use - and the gas tax is hidden within a cost of gasoline so people often do not realize it is there - and predominately today roads get funds from the general fund as well as the gas tax since the gas tax is no longer adequate to pay for roads). Just because the subsidies are more hidden doesn't mean they aren't there.
The fact is that public transit is a way more efficient allocation of tax resources than building more freeways. The individual person commuting to work in a car is a way bigger drain on the taxpayer than the person who goes to work by subway.
I am sure some people save time taking the train to work. Doesn't work in my case.
I save more time driving than taking the train. My time is more valuable to me. Plus they keep raising the cost of parking at the station. Waiting for the bus to take me to the train so I can take twice as long (and change trains once) is not made up by the monetary savings. It takes me 30 minutes to get to work by car, 24 miles. I do experience some savings from carpooling with my wife (works in the same building) and children (drop one on the way at school, the other is in daycare across the street from where I work), but even when we both were driving, it was more cost effective, even with the wear and tear on the cars, to drive. Monetarily, it costs almost $4 one way, plus parking at the station ($3.50 a day). Even with the money my agency gives for taking the train, I would still pay more to ride rail, not counting the time involved. Until gas breaks $4 a gallon (maybe this summer!!!), it is more cost effective to drive.
The time difference is the gamebreaker anyway. By rail, not including driving to the station, would take over an hour to get me to my office. 30-40 minutes driving, plus free parking. With 2 riders (kid still would be free on the train for a couple more years), cost of riding goes up. Driving does not change.
It is nice to have the rail option, and if I worked downtown I would ride rail (time would increase for a shorter drive, plus parking expenses would escalate). Just does not work in my situation now.
I think that it is important to note that the study presumes the elimination of one car entirely. That means no insurance, no maintenance/repairs, no car loan payments, etc.
penncentral2002 wrote: Who do you think pays for the roads you drive on? Either way, the commuters aren't paying the full cost for their trip into work. Roads are, if anything, even more subsidized than public transportation because other than a few toll roads, commuters pay none of the cost directly (there is indirect funding through the gas tax, but even that is not a perfect way to allocate costs for use - and the gas tax is hidden within a cost of gasoline so people often do not realize it is there - and predominately today roads get funds from the general fund as well as the gas tax since the gas tax is no longer adequate to pay for roads). Just because the subsidies are more hidden doesn't mean they aren't there.The fact is that public transit is a way more efficient allocation of tax resources than building more freeways. The individual person commuting to work in a car is a way bigger drain on the taxpayer than the person who goes to work by subway.
The cost per passenger mile to operate a automobile is less than the subsidy per passenger mile for other modes of transportation.
Gas taxes never funded most of the roads. The origin of local streets and roads pre-date gas taxes and even the automobile and they are needed even if the auto did not exist. The gas taxes were set up as a means of funding and improving routes of state and interstate importance. There may be a shortfall, but it is at least partially due to the fact that money is taken from "highway funds" to subsidize other modes.
------I found the following information at Victoria Transportation Policy Institute http://www.vtpi.org/ From: TDM Encyvlopedia -Transportation Costs $ Benefit , Table 15 Cost per vehicle mile for motor vehicles (2000 US dollars) is $1.20 costs incliude: travel time, veh ownership, crash damage, non residential off-street parking, vehicle operation, roadway costs, traffic congestion, environmental costs, roadway land value, residential parking, fuel externalities, traffic impacts. Assuming 1.4 passenger per vehicle cost per passenger mile = 86 cents From a report titled: Comprehensive Benefits of Rail transit Benefits dated 12-May 2004 Table 6 US Transit Expenses and Revenues By Mode (APTA 2002) note auto is not included in this Table Total rail: Total exp/passenger mile 1.55 Fares paid $0.22 Subsidy $1.33 Percent subsidy 79% All bus Total exp/passenger mile $1.86 Fare $0.26 Subsidy $1.59 Percent subsidy 83% Costs include: Capital expences and operating expences The Subsidy for Heavy Rail is 72% Commuter Rail 73% and Light Rail 91% The Subsidy for Bus 76% Trolley Bus 84% Demand Responce 90% ------
Yes, these figures are old and oil prices have increased, but the cost of rail has increased too (partially due to increased oil costs.
Note that the costs used for non-auto modes are "capital and operating" only. Many of the types of costs attributed to the auto should be attributed to them too, but arent.
I tried to sell my two cents worth, but no one would give me a plug nickel for it.
I don't have a leg to stand on.
That was a perfect example of how to lie with statistics.
You notice that they don't divide the cost between costs paid by the user and costs paid by the government/general public with private vehicles. Maybe because the cost paid by the user per mile in driving is very low - and the majority of that goes towards paying private enterprise (mainly oil companies and insurance companies, but also private parking companies) rather than the general pool which funds road construction and maintenance. Excepting a few privately owned and constructed toll roads, the cost paid towards the general fund is pennies per mile (figuring an average fuel economy of 25 miles per gallon and the average state/federal gas tax being around 40 cents). The rest of the cost of road construction and maintenance as well as the externalities will be born by the general public - thus, showing a higher subsidy rate per mile than what they show for transit when you figure that their cost is 86 cents per mile, but the road user is paying a few cents per mile (excluding gasoline prices). When you add in gasoline prices (excluding the gas tax which has already been accounted for), the cost per mile at their time period might be about 5 cents (again using the 25 mile per gallon average for all driving which may well be a bit low, but even if you figure 30 miles per gallon, the results are the same). That leaves a subsidy of 80 cents per mile driven using their own figures - which gives a similar, if not higher, percentage of subsidy to the other modes of transportation.
However, that isn't the only thing wrong with their study. Of course, driving is going to have a lower cost per mile - the total mileage of roads is much larger as is the total mileage traveled. Thus, while the amount of the government subsidy per mile is higher for rail and bus, the total government subsidy for driving is way higher. I'd even say that their own figures show that when you include the number that they didn't (the price that the driver pays per mile driven) that their own figures show a higher subsidy for driving than for public transit.
One other point about costs per mile:
If a large percentage of people switched from private autos to public transporation, then the subsidized cost per mile of highways would increase (small decrease in total spending but significant decrease in total miles) while the subsidized cost per passenger mile of public transportation would decrease.
penncentral2002 wrote: That was a perfect example of how to lie with statistics.You notice that they don't divide the cost between costs paid by the user and costs paid by the government/general public with private vehicles. Maybe because the cost paid by the user per mile in driving is very low - and the majority of that goes towards paying private enterprise (mainly oil companies and insurance companies, but also private parking companies) rather than the general pool which funds road construction and maintenance. Excepting a few privately owned and constructed toll roads, the cost paid towards the general fund is pennies per mile (figuring an average fuel economy of 25 miles per gallon and the average state/federal gas tax being around 40 cents). The rest of the cost of road construction and maintenance as well as the externalities will be born by the general public - thus, showing a higher subsidy rate per mile than what they show for transit when you figure that their cost is 86 cents per mile, but the road user is paying a few cents per mile (excluding gasoline prices). When you add in gasoline prices (excluding the gas tax which has already been accounted for), the cost per mile at their time period might be about 5 cents (again using the 25 mile per gallon average for all driving which may well be a bit low, but even if you figure 30 miles per gallon, the results are the same). That leaves a subsidy of 80 cents per mile driven using their own figures - which gives a similar, if not higher, percentage of subsidy to the other modes of transportation.However, that isn't the only thing wrong with their study. Of course, driving is going to have a lower cost per mile - the total mileage of roads is much larger as is the total mileage traveled. Thus, while the amount of the government subsidy per mile is higher for rail and bus, the total government subsidy for driving is way higher. I'd even say that their own figures show that when you include the number that they didn't (the price that the driver pays per mile driven) that their own figures show a higher subsidy for driving than for public transit.
According to the American Automobile Association (2003 figures) the average cost per mile to own and operate a medium car is $0.51. Assuming 1.4 passengers the cost per passenger-mile is $0.37
The total cost to society (including the owners cost is calculated at $0.86.
The subsidy would be roughly $0.49, not the $0.80 you estimate. Also the costs for rail given are not society's costs they are construction + operating only. They do not include policing costs, fire & rescue costs, environmental costs, etc which are attributed to societys cost for the automobile. Therfore the actual cost and subsidy for rail is higher than stated.
The greater miles traveled on of roads is not relevent. The costs are per passenger-mile traveled.
The comparison between autos and other modes is not made the VTI site (which is pro-public transit). The auto numbers are from one study and the transit numbers from another study. I made the comparison.
I have searched the Internet looking for a comparison between the cost of autos compared to other modes and never found any. I suspect this is because except in very limited circumstances (ie highy congested cities like New York) the auto is really a more efficient means of transportation.
As others have stated the auto provides a higher level of service to the individual user than either the train or bus in most circumstances.
I can see it now with two wage earners in the family. "Honey is it my day to drive to work or is it yours? Now that's if they are civil. You can insert your own language if both want to drive on the same day.
But let me be serious for a moment. The APTA study, as somebody already noted, assumes a one car family which might have been the case years ago, but in today's hectic pace of living is not possible. People drive to work for many reasons. Some car-pooling with both wage earners in the family may be possible if both work in the same general area so then only on car is needed. Some have to do errands after work or during lunch so two cars are necessary. And even if the wife stays home - which rather rarefor these days - she needs the car to transport the kids to their soccer games, music lessons after school or to the doctor.
In some cases there is no direct public transortation service between somebody's home and their work place so they have to drive. This was my case. If I went from my house in Maryland to my work in the extreme Southeast of Washington, DC it would have taken two buses and two subway rides to get from or to work, and the trip would have taken much longer although it may not have been as aggravating from the standpoint of traffic jams. Then there is another factor, some don't think the public transit system is safe. This was brought out recently with the recent spate of derailments on the Washington area's METRO.
RudyRockvilleMD wrote:The APTA study, as somebody already noted, assumes a one car family which might have been the case years ago, but in today's hectic pace of living is not possible. People drive to work for many reasons. Some car-pooling with both wage earners in the family may be possible if both work in the same general area so then only on car is needed. Some have to do errands after work or during lunch so two cars are necessary. And even if the wife stays home - which rather rarefor these days - she needs the car to transport the kids to their soccer games, music lessons after school or to the doctor.
The APTA study, as somebody already noted, assumes a one car family which might have been the case years ago, but in today's hectic pace of living is not possible. People drive to work for many reasons. Some car-pooling with both wage earners in the family may be possible if both work in the same general area so then only on car is needed. Some have to do errands after work or during lunch so two cars are necessary. And even if the wife stays home - which rather rarefor these days - she needs the car to transport the kids to their soccer games, music lessons after school or to the doctor.
I guess my wife and I are one exception to that one. We've been managing to get by on one vehicle since October, in spite of the fact that we both work full-time in different locations.
Brian (IA) http://blhanel.rrpicturearchives.net.
I use public transportation exclusively to get to work. One significant savings for me is the pint of bourbon for each one-way trip that I would have to buy to quell the homicidal rage that driving in DC causes.
Seriously, though, taking public transit enables me to get by with a 17-year-old vehicle that wouldn't stand the strain of commuting every day. Otherwise we'd have to have 2 vehicles in good condition.
Something that just makes me shake my head and ask "What were they thinking?" - all the people who live on one side of DC and work on the other. DDDDUUUUUHHHHH!!! Did they not even consider the horrors of driving in this motorized asylum?
"The greater miles traveled on of roads is not relevent. The costs are per passenger-mile traveled."
So we'll losing money on every mile driven, but we're making it up in volume?
Seriously, you're basing your argument on the American Autombile Association figures? That is about the equivilent of basing an argument on smoking from figures from one of those "consumer" groups that the Tobacco Institute used to fund. It might appear more neutral coming from the AAA than the oil companies and automakers, but the AAA is still a pro-driving lobbying group. They'll use the cost per passenger mile figure despite the fact that it is extremely flawed measurement to try to convince people that building public transit isn't cost effective. Quite simply you can't compare the cost per passenger mile of driving with the cost per passenger mile of public transit because driving includes low cost rural areas while public transit includes only high cost urban areas. The social cost of a person driving his or her kid to school in a rural area isn't comparable to the person commuting by themselves in an urban area - even if they travel the same distance. Yet, the AAA will use both groups and use the way lower cost of the roads for the rural driver with a passenger to balance out the higher cost of the individual driver in an urban area. Then they will use the parking fees, higher insurance rates, and higher gas prices paid by the urban driver to make it look like the rural driver is paying more than he or she really is. They will use the better gas mileage (excepting hybrids) that rural/highway driving gets over city driving to make cars look more fuel efficient. They will balance the lower cost of rural road construction with the high cost of urban road building - you can't do that with transit systems which are only built and operated in high cost urban areas. See how stastics lie?
So pretty much, cost per passenger mile is comparing apples and oranges. You can't compare rural driving with urban driving. And yes, that is exactly where the much higher miles of road and miles driven make a difference. The majority of road mileage is in low cost areas - how many light or heavy rail line transit systems are in low cost areas? None. To compare the social costs and social subsidy of driving you have to compare urban with urban. Then you start having to look at the cost of capacity. In that case, you'll find that dollars spent on transit create more capacity than dollars spend on roads (do you know how much it costs to make a mile of interstate quality road? Its over a million dollars in a rural area - at least double that in an urban area - and that doesn't add too much capacity). Not to mention that creating public transit lowers the costs of driving by lowering the number of drivers - so its really a question of the most efficient allocation of resources. And in urban areas that is transit.
And that is just talking about money - if you really want to talk about how unefficient driving is, you have to start talking about energy use. That is where public transit is really more efficient than driving. Driving is by far the least efficient way to use energy. And global energy supplies aren't growing at the same rate as demand.
I suspect that there are some who wouldn't take public transportation even if home and office were a half block from the train stations, the schedule was perfect for the work hours and the travel time was half of drive time.
There is a difference between those who won't and those who can't use public transportation. I wouldn't expect someone to use public transport if it took two busses and two trains or the ride took much longer than the drive.
I will usually drive and ride on my occasional trips to Chicago, but the only thing between here and Milwaukee is the Interstate.
Some of my tax money is probably going to pay for public transport that I do not use. I consider it an investment in holding the line on the price of gasoline. Every time some one gets on the train to go to work there are a couple of gallons of gas saved for my use and one more spot on the highway for my car when I have to drive through the big city.
"We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics
JOdom wrote: Did they not even consider the horrors of driving in this motorized asylum?
Did they not even consider the horrors of driving in this motorized asylum?
So true - it makes no sense that people here wouldn't ride Metro due to safety concerns but somehow think that driving was safe. Let's see - this is an area where you see people exiting at the last minute from the left most lane of 4 on a semi-regular basis. It doesn't make much sense. I know plenty of people who moved here and then try to get out after they see what living here is like. Especially when they see how insane the roads are - you really put your life at risk everytime you drive here with as many dangerous and reckless things you see people do on the roads here.
But that isn't to say that people don't have safety concerns about Metro - especially given the number of derailments and the time that train backed into another one - they've been lucky so far these accidents haven't happened during rush hour when the trains are packed like sardines. Plus, a lot of people have fears of terrorism attacks. Plus, I remember when I worked at Suitland Federal Center they sent out an email that warned people to not walk to the Suitland Metro Station by themselves after there were several robberies and even a shootout in the middle of the day there.
So really, the safest commuter option in DC seems to be to stay home - either that or move.
the citizens of Utah looked at the costs of building a new toll road or building commuter rail and overwhelmingly voted for rail. Long-term that will provide savings for everyone - even drivers.
dd
dldance wrote: the citizens of Utah looked at the costs of building a new toll road or building commuter rail and overwhelmingly voted for rail. Long-term that will provide savings for everyone - even drivers.dd
I got to check out the interior of one of the new double deck cars for the FrontRunner commuter service when it was on display late last year in Salt Lake City. It was a pretty nice car on the inside, and it had that "new car" smell to boot!
It's likely that the commuter service will help out in the long run, as Utah's population continues to grow, although there's no point in my using the service, unless I want to take a train ride up to Ogden for the fun of it. I happen to live close enough to Salt Lake City, so it's easier for me to drive than to use public transportation.
It's easier for most people to drive then take the transit, in the USA anyways, exept in the most heavily populated areas like New York City. Subsidies screws everything around and makes it all unclear. No subsidies for nobody no mater what is the only way to find out.
Why do they claim trucks polute but busses in transit are "environmentaly clean" when they are mechanicaly the same thing ?
440cuin wrote:Why do they claim trucks polute but busses in transit are "environmentaly clean" when they are mechanicaly the same thing ?
My "quick answer" to that is that is it environmentally cleaner to run one bus carrying ten passengers than to run ten cars.
Cris_261 wrote: dldance wrote: the citizens of Utah looked at the costs of building a new toll road or building commuter rail and overwhelmingly voted for rail. Long-term that will provide savings for everyone - even drivers.ddI got to check out the interior of one of the new double deck cars for the FrontRunner commuter service when it was on display late last year in Salt Lake City. It was a pretty nice car on the inside, and it had that "new car" smell to boot! It's likely that the commuter service will help out in the long run, as Utah's population continues to grow, although there's no point in my using the service, unless I want to take a train ride up to Ogden for the fun of it. I happen to live close enough to Salt Lake City, so it's easier for me to drive than to use public transportation.
Fortunately my commute is 13 carpeted stairs - except for the occasional airport run and it will take a few years for all of the pieces of that one to get in place - but I am looking forward to that. Yes I will take a ride for the fun of it. Last time I took a train over the SLC - Ogden line was 1967.
The Traxx light rail line out to the airport will be a boon to people catching a flight, or to folks coming in to visit the state. I'm looking forward to when there's a light rail line to the Sugarhouse area of SLC.
I would have liked to have rode a train to Ogden in 1967, but I wouldn't be born until the following year. Did you take a UP train, or did the Rio Grande offer service to Ogden?
penncentral2002 wrote: "The greater miles traveled on of roads is not relevent. The costs are per passenger-mile traveled."So we'll losing money on every mile driven, but we're making it up in volume?Seriously, you're basing your argument on the American Autombile Association figures? That is about the equivilent of basing an argument on smoking from figures from one of those "consumer" groups that the Tobacco Institute used to fund. It might appear more neutral coming from the AAA than the oil companies and automakers, but the AAA is still a pro-driving lobbying group. They'll use the cost per passenger mile figure despite the fact that it is extremely flawed measurement to try to convince people that building public transit isn't cost effective. Quite simply you can't compare the cost per passenger mile of driving with the cost per passenger mile of public transit because driving includes low cost rural areas while public transit includes only high cost urban areas. The social cost of a person driving his or her kid to school in a rural area isn't comparable to the person commuting by themselves in an urban area - even if they travel the same distance. Yet, the AAA will use both groups and use the way lower cost of the roads for the rural driver with a passenger to balance out the higher cost of the individual driver in an urban area. Then they will use the parking fees, higher insurance rates, and higher gas prices paid by the urban driver to make it look like the rural driver is paying more than he or she really is. They will use the better gas mileage (excepting hybrids) that rural/highway driving gets over city driving to make cars look more fuel efficient. They will balance the lower cost of rural road construction with the high cost of urban road building - you can't do that with transit systems which are only built and operated in high cost urban areas. See how stastics lie?So pretty much, cost per passenger mile is comparing apples and oranges. You can't compare rural driving with urban driving. And yes, that is exactly where the much higher miles of road and miles driven make a difference. The majority of road mileage is in low cost areas - how many light or heavy rail line transit systems are in low cost areas? None. To compare the social costs and social subsidy of driving you have to compare urban with urban. Then you start having to look at the cost of capacity. In that case, you'll find that dollars spent on transit create more capacity than dollars spend on roads (do you know how much it costs to make a mile of interstate quality road? Its over a million dollars in a rural area - at least double that in an urban area - and that doesn't add too much capacity). Not to mention that creating public transit lowers the costs of driving by lowering the number of drivers - so its really a question of the most efficient allocation of resources. And in urban areas that is transit.And that is just talking about money - if you really want to talk about how unefficient driving is, you have to start talking about energy use. That is where public transit is really more efficient than driving. Driving is by far the least efficient way to use energy. And global energy supplies aren't growing at the same rate as demand.
Actually the AAA is considered an authoritive non-biased source on the costs for auto owners to own, operate and maintain their vehicles. They favor a mixed mode approach to transportation.
I agree with you regarding the differences between urban and rural transportation environment and needs.
However, I have encountered many people who want to force urban transportation modes on suburban and rural areas where they don't work.
For instance bus transit in rural areas is less efficent than auto because the ridership is is not there, so they run around empty much of the time. In the community where I live many people, who don't have cars, walk, hitchike or beg rides from frends because of the infrequency and slowness of the bus service. To provide better service would be very expensive and if ridership increased with the better service there would be more under-utilized bus runs and higher subsidies needed than with the current system.
Even in most congested urban areas, in the overall system, trains and buses spend much of their time running around nearly empty thus reducing the fuel savings and increasing the polution costs of the system. A fact which many transit advocates gloss over.
Awhile back I got a tour of the Sacramento (CA) Light Rail maintenance facility. I was surprised to find out that when the system is shut down, the cars are siting in the storage yard still drawing a humungus amount of power. In the old street car and inturban days they would have been completely shut down. Such is a modern rail transit system.
Studies of the cost to society of the automobile attribute every cost they can come up with to make the auto look bad. I have yet to find studies which attribute the ligitimate similar costs to mass transit.
How many riders are needed on a train to save fuel over the same number of people in automobiles? How many riders to reduce air pollution? For an honest comparison, you have to look at the overall system not just a few hand picked runs. Diesel trains burn gallons per mile, Autos fuel consumption is miles per gallon. The energy to operate electric trains is comparable. It has to come from somewhere. At what costs ( fuel expenses, air pollution, water pollution, etc).
Efficiency for the transit operator and efficiency for the transit user are opposites.
The reason the "great mass transit systems" of the US disappeared is because the could not provide adequate service for the majority of their customers at a reasonable (to the customer) cost. Most of the systems did not make money. They were usually subsidized by others (property developers, merchants, power companies, or having other business such as freight)
Now with higher populations in may areas, such systems may become viable (with reasonable govt subsidies).
The point of my posts is that the auto is not as bad, and the other modes not as good as many mass trainset advocates claim.
Like most such public ad campaigns, eventually the reality of commuter rail will be light years difference from the bill of goods sold to the public during an election period. 10 years from now the same folks who voted in favor of transit will be the first ones in line complaining about all the unadvertised shortcomings of transit - extra time to travel from home to transit station, lack of decent highways to get to places transit doesn't go to, etc.
Voters do stupid things all the time, and 2006 will be remembered as a watershed election for stupidity: Like those in Washington who voted in favor of a 15% renewable mandate for utilities - when their power bills are 35% higher than they otherwise should be, those same folks who voted in favor of the renewable mandate will be the first ones complaining about the resulting higher cost of their electricity.
penncentral2002 wrote: Seriously, you're basing your argument on the American Autombile Association figures? That is about the equivilent of basing an argument on smoking from figures from one of those "consumer" groups that the Tobacco Institute used to fund.
Seriously, you're basing your argument on the American Autombile Association figures? That is about the equivilent of basing an argument on smoking from figures from one of those "consumer" groups that the Tobacco Institute used to fund.
As opposed to ICF International, AAR, NARP, et al?
futuremodal wrote: dldance wrote: the citizens of Utah looked at the costs of building a new toll road or building commuter rail and overwhelmingly voted for rail. Long-term that will provide savings for everyone - even drivers.ddLike most such public ad campaigns, eventually the reality of commuter rail will be light years difference from the bill of goods sold to the public during an election period. 10 years from now the same folks who voted in favor of transit will be the first ones in line complaining about all the unadvertised shortcomings of transit - extra time to travel from home to transit station, lack of decent highways to get to places transit doesn't go to, etc.Voters do stupid things all the time, and 2006 will be remembered as a watershed election for stupidity: Like those in Washington who voted in favor of a 15% renewable mandate for utilities - when their power bills are 35% higher than they otherwise should be, those same folks who voted in favor of the renewable mandate will be the first ones complaining about the resulting higher cost of their electricity.
Remember that these people have been using light rail transit for nearly 10 years - so they already have seen the limitations and shortcomings. But they have also had several freeways expanded and saw what had to be demolished to make room and how little impact on congestion was actually made. Ridership in the SLC area is still increasing each year.
Cris_261 wrote: The Traxx light rail line out to the airport will be a boon to people catching a flight, or to folks coming in to visit the state. I'm looking forward to when there's a light rail line to the Sugarhouse area of SLC.I would have liked to have rode a train to Ogden in 1967, but I wouldn't be born until the following year. Did you take a UP train, or did the Rio Grande offer service to Ogden?
UP - then from Ogden up Weber Canyon to Green River and on to Chicago.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.