From: adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Adrian Brandt)
Subject: Re: Cars as "something better"
Organization: Northern Telecom Inc, Mountain View, CA
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 00:06:52 GMT

In article <92358.31156.J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM>, J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM writes:
|> It has been stated by an anti-car advocate here that the auto is 38% subsi-
|> dized.  Using mass transit terminology, that means the equivalent of a 62%
|> "farebox recovery."  So yes, they *don't* pay for themselves.  But how many
|> mass transit systems--especially in a low-density area--come even *close* to
|> a 62% farebox recovery?  The "cars don't pay for themselves" argument is a
|> horribly hypocritical statement for mass transit advocates to make.

Wouldn't the auto's "farebox recovery" be much lower (than the hypothical
38% we're throwing around here) in rural and/or low-density areas too?

|> If we could make it burn cleaner and use renewable energy sources, would
|> you still demand the abolition of the auto?

I know this question was directed at Mr. Vandeman, but I'd like to answer
too.  I wouldn't demand abolition of autos then anymore than I do now. 
I think only a small minority of transit advocates want auto abolition.
BUT, even if the auto used clean & renwable energy sources, I'd still be
concerned about land use and livability issues that have nothing to do
with pollution or the amount of energy available.  Such as congestion,
sprawl and noise.  Wide boulevards and expressways criss-crossing all over
the place with fast moving (or congested) traffic don't make for a nice
liveable, enjoyable place for humans to be.  Many people use transit in
part (or wholly) because it allows for a way to avoid the chore of driving
and exposing oneself to all the uncertainty and unpleasantness that might
come with that (such as unpredictable travel time due to congestion,
getting hit with a ticket, getting hit by another vehicle, having to pay
attention to the task of driving, breakdowns, having to park, etc.).


|> > On transit, 100% of the time is useful time for me.

|> *For me*.  That's the key.  People have different needs, and what is 100%
|> useful to you may be a total waste to other people.

Right, so you'll support funding and development of alternatives to the
car for those whose needs include avoiding the hassle of driving--for
whatever reason.  Also, some people can't drive a car or can't afford one.
To the extent that there are good transit alternatives, they can still
enjoy some independence and mobility.


|> >-Trains pollute a lot...

I've got the pollution figures for a CalTrain locomotive at home.  I do
believe they are rather high.  This is mostly because the F40 diesel
engines that CalTrain uses are an old design from the days were nobody
worried about pollution much--at least from locomotives.  I wouldn't
be surprised if there was little or no pollution control equipment on
an F40.

FYI, I do know that CalTrain typically burns 3 to 4 gallons of diesel
per mile.  In October 1992, the average CalTrain (by my calculations)
run carried 382 riders.  This average includes off-peak, mid-day and
weekend trains.  On average, a rider rides 22 miles of the 48-mile
run, so at any given time, the average CalTrain is carrying about 175
riders.  At 3 to 4 gallons per mile, this ridership works out to
about 43 to 58 passenger miles per gallon.  Of course, figures for a
moderate- to heavily-loaded peak-period train would look much, much
better. 

|> Will you pay $10 per ride with the 60%-90% subsidy removed?  Remember
|> that the auto has been said to be "only" (relative to mass transit,
|> ONLY is the right word) 38% subsidized.  I'll pay an extra 50c in gas
|> taxes; will you pay $10 for a round trip on BART?  Let's be consistent
|> here.

Okay, let's: remember that the "only 38% subsidized auto" (debatable, but
I'll run with it) is ejoying great economies of scale.  If the transit
infrastructure were as far along and extensive as that for autos, there
would very likely be no subsidy required to continue operating and
maintaining it.  If roads were as spotty and had as poor connectivity
and operating characteristics (such as frequecy and operating hours)
as transit does, they would need enormously higher ratio of subsidy.

With transit, it costs essentially the same to run an empty bus or train
as it does for a full one.  If the mass transit network and its
operating characteristics were even near as complete and far-along as
that for the motor vehicle, there wouldn't be much need for operating
subsidies.  As far as capital costs go, I'm not so sure.  But then,
the capital costs of building the road/highway infrastructure we have
today was accomplished with massive use governement general fund monies.

The point is that transit has a break-even point for operating and
maintenance cost--as does the road/highway system.  I believe that
with some capital investment in the transit system we can easily
reach that break-even.  With the road/highway system, I'm not so
sure.  Since that system is pretty built-out, I think the more
obvious path to the break-even is to "right-price" it--preferably
by reflecting the "true" costs (whatever those might be) in the cost
of gasoline.

I hope Clinton moves ahead with the federal gas tax increase that was
recommended by several participants in his recent economic summit.
Even the "big three" automakers have all come around to support a gas
tax increase.  Reportedly, their interest has to do with making it
easier to sell small cars in greater numbers and more profitably.
Almost all of our economic competitors measure their gas taxes in
dollars while our is still measured in dimes.


|> I do, however, always use rail transit on Fridays before long weekends.

In order for it to be there for you on Fridays, it's got to be there all
the time.  So why not reconize that, while for you, it may only make sense
on Fridays, but for many people, it makes sense every day of the week?
Allow those of us who like it for more than Friday's to have it, and
we won't take your car or your choice to drive away.  That way you aren't
having transit "crammed" down your throat (being forced to ride it, that
is), and we aren't being forced to drive.


|> The important thing here is that ALL of my options are useful to me at
|> various times.  That flexibility--with cars, buses and trains--is
|> crucial to a top-notch transportation system.

RIGHT!  Now, let's allow the "flexibility" of the transit system to catch
up to that of the road/highway system...

-- 

Adrian Brandt (415) 940-2379
UUCP: ...!ames!ntmtv!adrian
ARPA: ntmtv!adrian@ames.arc.nasa.gov