From: hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,sci.environment
Subject: Re: Public vs. private transportation
Date: 19 Aug 92 18:19:15 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Distribution: na
Organization: Purdue University Statistics Department

In article <1992Aug19.014010.26867@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>In article <57138@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug17.214645.5769@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>>>In article <57056@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes:
>>>>In article <4245@wet.UUCP> editor@wet.UUCP (Eric Swanson) writes:

			...............

>>You keep thinking of congested areas.  Purdue University has a free
>>parking lot....

>	In other words,

>	Ha, ha, I've got subsidized parking!!!

Cutting off the rest of the statement has distorted it completely.  
Most of those allowed to park in the closer paid parking do so.  The
free lot is used mainly by those who cannot get closer, or by those
who prefer to spend many minutes walking.

>>>	And it is pure myth that our roads are completely supported
>>>with user fees. They are actually 38% subsidized (source: Joseph
>>>Vranich, _Supertrains_). And that does not even count such things
>>>medical care for accident victims and smog sufferers and law
>>>enforcement.

Again, much has been deleted.  But even if the roads are 38% subsidized,
public transportation is 50-75% subsidized.  Right now, the motorists are
providing the roads for the others.

>>Much of the roads would be needed even if travel between home and 
>>work did not exist...

>	But smaller and less traveled roads, I may add.

Smaller, not much.  Freight and buses need at least two lanes in a given
direction.  And visiting would be just about impossible without private
cars or taxis.  Taxis would not be that much more efficient in using the
roads.

>	And if one could get fully loaded shopping carts aboard buses,
>life would be even easier.

I suggest that you consider what modifications would have to be made to 
vehicles to put fully loaded shopping carts on them.  And what would happen
to the waiting time?  Buses do not go that close to houses, either.

During the 30s, the street car company in Chicago claimed that 98% of the
city was within 3 blocks of some line.  This translates to 3/8 of a mile,
not an easy push for a fully loaded shopping cart.

			.................

>... Even at the minimum wage, waiting time is 7 cents
>>per minute.  In considering transportation, it is portal-to-portal time
>>which counts.

>	Baloney. If one does not have to drive, one can be busy with
>other things, such as reading. This is especially true on rail
>systems. I've gotten a heck of a lot of reading done on BART, for
>example.

I find it possible to do light reading on trains, but not more.  One
cannot do much significant reading on short trips.

>	And one can also do sightseeing without distracton.

Hah!  You are thinking at most of city sightseeing.  How closely timed 
are you going to have the tour buses?  You have to do a particular bit
of sightseeing essentially within the parameters that someone else has
fixed, instead of spending more time on some things, and less on others.

Even most sightseeing is going from point of interest to point of interest.
And even for viewing scenery, buses are quite poor, compared to cars.

			...................

>...Smog is a problem mainly in a few congested
>>areas...

>	And very populated ones, one might add. Just look at Los
>Angeles or Houston or some other smoggy city. I have a relative who
>had to move out of the LA area because of the smog there. One
>counterargument I have seen is

>Governmental policies should discourage the congestion, instead of
>>the converse.  One thing in this direction in some places is a requirement
>>of an adequate number of parking places.

Let these congested areas decongest themselves by prohibiting expansion,
which adds to the problem.  Probably real estate should pay for the initial
cost of roads, since they are what produces the demand.

>	That would only make things worse. What is necessary is to
>discourage large-scale car use in crowded areas and to provide
>alternatives. I've crossed the Bay Bridge (between San Francisco and
>Oakland) a couple of times by bus, and I got slowed down in the middle
>of the bridge, going to San Francisco. However, I've gone that route
>by BART, and it was a heck of a lot quicker and more comfortable.
>Furthermore, half of all commuters along that route go by BART instead
>of by the Bay Bridge.

But this problem was brought about by the reckless growth of the region.
If all businesses and homes in those cities had to provide parking, at
least for new ones, the problem would eventually disappear.  Subsequent
problems would not arise.  If this had been imposed in the past, the
Bay Bridge congestion would be much less now.  Also, in the future, 
much commuting will be eliminated, as more use of electronics is made.

			...............

>>If the riders of BART had to pay for all of the cost of building and
>>maintaining the track, etc., the cost would be much greater.  You 

>	I have news for you: BART's operating costs are only 50%
>subsidized, and adding capital costs does not push the subsidy factor
>up too much. (operating budget: $200 million/year, fare revenue: $100
>million/year; it took a couple of billion dollars to build BART, so
>that implies an additional $100 million/year).

*I* see that making others pay for this is unconscionable.  If BART
could pay for itself, including capital costs, then it would be appropriate
to build it.  If not, it should never have been built.

>	And when you are counting up the costs, have you counted in
>all car costs:

>	The price of the car
>	The interest in your car payments
>	The price of fuel
>	Registration fees
>	Maintenance
>	Insurance
>	etc.

>	I've seen estimates of $6000/year for a typical car owner,
>though that can be reduced by making a car last a _long_ time.

I am aware of all this.  The decision should be up to the individual
to have a personal car or to use other means.  If there were no government
run public transportation, and cabs and jitneys were deregulated, there
would be these provided.  

BTW, my wife and I have two cars, and I estimate our total annual expense
at much less that that.  Most of the travel is short, but on those occasions
where longer trips were made, I cannot imagine a public transportation
system which would have even been reasonable, except for hiring the 
vehicle.

>	If I lived near an East Bay BART station and had to commute by
>BART to San Francisco, I would pay about $5/day, or about $1300/year.
>With BART's full operating and capital costs added in, it would be
>about $4000/year.

I have no objection whatever to public transportation if it had to pay
all the costs for itself.  

>	An aside: BART's electric bill for powering its cars, its
>"fuel" bill, is about $12 million/year, equivalent to about 25 cents
>for an East Bay -- San Francisco trip. The equivalent trip by car
>would cost $1, _if_ one had a high-mpg car and _if_ one could travel
>at cruising speed most of the way.

But if you did not want to go to downtown San Francisco, if you drove
you would be able to continue on to your destination.  And if you did
not live near a BART station, your marginal cost would be little higher.

If you were visiting a friend in San Francisco, you are not going to 
get there by BART.  Similarly if you are visiting a friend in the East Bay.
I am quite familiar with the area.

>>still have to wait for the vehicle, and if you are going at an unusual
>>time, the wait may be very long.  But it is the legislative support of
>>the congestion which even makes this possible.
>
>	"Legislative support of congestion"? What???

Tax breaks are given to "develop" the inner cities, even massive ones.
General revenues are used to support public transportation, especially
to downtowns.  In many cases, cities even refuse to expand to land which
will not be used for anything else, but pay to increase the use of 
central areas.

>	But what is the alternative? Eat up all the land? What will be
>left to farm on?

>	Is having people isolated from each other a good thing?

>	Are long, boring drives your idea of fun? They sure aren't
>_my_ idea of fun.

What about boring rides on public transportation?  When my wife was a
graduate student in New York, she had to take 3 vehicles and spend more
than an hour on the trip one way.  New York subways never had enough seats.

I do not approve of long commutes.  What we need to do is to use electronics
to greatly reduce them.

>	In the long run, it is a heck of a lot more expensive to live
>spread out than to live close in. That's because land costs $$$'s, and
>all that driving and all the roads cost $$$'s also.

Then the country is overpopulated.

>>A single city bus often causes a major traffic jam, costing hundreds
>>of people 5-10 minutes.  They use the roads, and pay nothing for their
>>construction or maintenance.

>	That's because they are subsidized, just like roads are.

>	And your belief that buses cause big traffic jams is just dead
>wrong. They just don't, as I can testify from personal experience.

From the experience of one riding in the bus, or from the experience
of the one in the private car?

>>Roads are needed for other than commuting.  There is no conceivable way
>>that I would use other than car to go to another university within 
>>several hundred miles...

>	At 60 mph,

>	200 mi = 3 hours
>	300 mi = 5 hours

>	May be your idea of fun, but it sure isn't mine...

Let us take an example to see the problem.  Ohio State University is about
250 miles from Purdue.  So how would you suggest that I go?  There has never
been a reasonable combination of trains, and intercity buses are certainly
no faster than cars.  I would have to take two buses, one of which might
not make any other stops, but the other would make one or 2.  And there 
still is the problem of getting to and from the bus terminals.

Another example, and here I will use plane travel, Michigan State University.
The distance is again 250 miles.  So consider the time spent, with optimal
connections.

	To airport			 5 minutes
	Checkin				20 minutes
	Flight to Chicago		40 minutes	
	Changing planes			40 minutes
	Flight to Lansing		60 minutes
	Collecting baggage		15 minutes
	To the university		20 minutes
	----------------		----------
	Total			       200 minutes

This excludes waiting times, etc.  It also excludes the problems of bad
weather, which messes up plane travel quite badly.  

How many public transportation vehicles do you think you could fill 
on these routes?  Even a bus needs about 50 passengers.  The problem
with mass transit is that it takes a mass traveling in the same 
direction at the same time.

>If we built 100+ mph highways, this would 
>>probably go up to 1000 miles.  The overhead time for a single plane

>	What will happen to car insurance premiums then? They will go
>up, up, up.

Probably not.  Interstate highways have quite low accident rates.  
Even "bloody Bayshore" is probably much safer than city streets.

>>trip is about 2 hours.  For trains, even if reasonably located, about

>	Trains? Why not? You can get a lot of work done along the way,
>and not get worn out as a long drive would do.

>>1 hour.  Buses use the roads, and are not that fast.  

>	True, that's why I like trains :-)

Trains, except for commuter trains, are a lost proposition.  Even in the Boswash
corridor, they lose money.

>>Public transportation should be required to pay for everything it uses.
>>Buses cause more damage to roads than cars; I suggest that buses be
>>required to pay at least the gas taxes and property taxes that cars
>>pay, and that the 50-75% subsidy be removed.  I suspect that most public
>>transportation systems would go bankrupt.  

>	Trucks are the worst offenders of all, actually. And there are
>more of them than there are buses.

And we need them, even if private transportation was outlawed.

>	Public transit will not go broke if gas taxes rise to about $2
>or $3 a gallon, which is what would be necessary to pay for _all_
>capital and operating costs of our roads.

The gas taxes are already paying for it.  Another source which should pay,
especially for new roads, is real estate, whose value depends on the roads.
Right now, a substantial part of the cost of public transportation comes
from gas taxes.

>>There is one which could survive, but it is generally illegal now; jitneys.
>>Private enterprise only for mass transit.

>	What's a jitney? And how does it differ from a taxi?

A jitney is a cross between a taxi and a bus.  It can pick up passengers
while passengers are traveling.

In most cities, taxicabs are a city-enforced monopoly, and are essentially
involved in price-fixing, with the absolute approval of the government.

There is also another problem with public transportation.  The roads 
cannot go on strike.  Labor unions are a form of monopoly, which would
not be tolerated in anything else.
-- 
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
Phone: (317)494-6054
hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Internet, bitnet)  
{purdue,pur-ee}!pop.stat!hrubin(UUCP)
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:40697 alt.politics.bush:2187