From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: Subsidies for Roads and Cars in the USA
Organization: LLNL
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 00:00:14 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.163009.26180@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>In article <1992Oct9.001224.11296@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
$ In article <1992Oct8.042236.25686@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
$ 
$ >The debate centers on whether it is more cost efficient, and individually
$ >liberating, to switch from automotive transportation to some mass alternative.
$ >The indications are that wherever cars are available, most people choose
$ >to use them in preference to alternatives.
$ 
$ 	You would never know it by how many people use some
$ public-transit systems. Gary Coffman, if you ever visit the Bay Area
$ someday, try riding BART, especially during commute hours, and you
$ will see _lots_ of counterevidence. Even a lot of car owners prefer
$ not to drive sometimes, especially when it comes to driving long
$ distances every day.
>
>I've ridden BART *once*. I don't intend to do so again. I don't have
>the ridership stats for BART versus freeways, but my eyeball estimate
>is that BART carries about one freeway lane worth of passengers. Seems
>your idea of "a lot" and mine differ.

	Eyeball estimate???

	I have actual passenger figures on BART -- 250,000 or so
trips/day on the average, and about half of that is across-the-Bay
trips. This is comparable to the number of people who cross over the
Bay Bridge each day.

$ The indications are that wherever
$ >mass transit operates, it runs at a loss.

$ 	And so do the various road-building and -maintaining agencies.
$ They are about 38% subsidized.

>If you can show that roads are 38% subsidized by *non-road users* I'll
>be interested. Otherwise I would just say that it doesn't matter
>*which* pocket the money comes from as long as it all comes out of
>the same pair of pants, and that pair of pants occupies a car seat.

	Make the estimate yourself. :-)

	And that estimate ignores all the other costs paid by drivers
-- that of buying, maintaining, and fueling the car. Not to mention
insurance and accident costs. The less you drive your car, the less
you wear it out, the less fuel you use, and the less likelihood you
have of getting into an accident.

	When I ride BART, I'm riding in a railcar that is (on the
average) 16 years old. How many cars last that long? Since each
railcar effectively serves 200 passengers on two trips each, and each
one would cost $1.5 m new at today's prices, the total price per
passenger is $7500. And where can you get a $7500 car that will last
16 years?

	Furthermore, the older BART cars now have about 1,000,000
miles on them, which is certainly enviable by automotive standards.

	Numbers: each BART passenger rides it about twice a day, there
are 600 railcars in BART's fleet, of which 450 are the original ones
dating back to 1972-74 and 150 are ones dating back to 1988.

	I've ridden other such aged vehicles, like the Philly
commuter-train cars, which date back to 1970 or thereabouts, and the
Norristown Trolley cars, which date back to 1930 or 1940 (I don't
quite recall).

$ 	And on a sufficiently comfortable system (usually a train),
$ you can get a lot of reading done. Gary Coffman, you'll never believe
$ how much reading I've been able to do on BART, reading I'd never be
$ able to do if I had to drive. My only serious annoyance is that BART
$ just isn't big enough for my convenience; I eagerly await an extension
$ to Livermore.
>
>You'd never believe, Loren I. Petrich, how car sick I get when trying
>to read on a moving vehicle. Not to mention how dangerous it is to
>look at a book instead of the drug addicts and winos sharing the 
>rail car. 23 people have been *murdered* on MARTA this year alone.

	Drug addicts and winos?

	I've ridden BART quite a lot, and I haven't seen many bums on
it.

	And isn't having one's car broken into or stolen a real bummer
also?

	As to your problem with reading, not everyone shares it. I
certainly don't, and certainly the numerous other BART book-readers
I've seen don't. Even buses get a lot of on-board readers, as I can
tell from the newspapers left behind (that's a big enough problem on
BART for there to be signs reminding people not to leave their papers
behind on the trains).

	My sister gets car-sick, but she says that Amtrak's trains
(NEC, I may add) are very comfortable, and she does some reading
there.

$ 	Even car owners use BART and other public-transit systems; it
$ saves a hassle of a drive. And it allows their cars to last longer.
$ I've seen BART parking lots packed with cars, and the same thing
$ happens at other commuter-train park-and-ride lots. Gary Coffman, why
$ don't you see how MARTA park-and-ride lots do some time. And even
$ carpoolers and vanpoolers like not having to drive long distances
$ every day.
>
>Well, Loren I. Petrich, I have looked at MARTA park and ride lots,
>all 8,000 spaces. They're usually about half full on weekdays. That's
>about 1/2 of one freeway lane saved by a $30 billion dollar system.
>That's MARTA's cost since 1969 when it was started. The newest MARTA
>station, the Bankhead station, is closed because there is insufficient
>usage to justify operating it. The $40 million station, and the $75
>million dollar rail extension to it are rusting away in the weeds
>next to I-20.

	That may be more of a MARTA planning problem than anything
else. A system has to go to the places people try to get to to be any
real good, and MARTA may fail the test. A lot of light-rail lines may
have been more appropriate.

	Let's look at BART, in comparison. It goes right underneath
the business districts of San Francisco and Oakland, and much of the
new development there since BART was built was -- you guessed it --
near the BART lines. There is a before-and-after picture of SF's
business district that shows this very clearly -- a lot of new
building sprouting up, but near the Market Street BART line.

	There was an article in the _Oakland Tribune_ not too long ago
about the lack of development along some of BART's East Bay segments;
the writers called it an example of missed opportunity, since similar
development has happened not only in the middle of SF and Oakland, but
also in Washington, DC and in Boston.

	So BART-type heavy-rail transit _can_ work, although it is not
guaranteed :-)

>Show me a US subway system that *breaks even* on it's *operating*
>costs, never mind construction cost. MARTA fares cover only 10%
>of *operating* cost. The other 90% is looted from the highway trust
>fund and a 1% general sales tax. This time the money is coming from
>pairs of pants that aren't sitting in MARTA seats.

	BART does 50% and the Washington Metro does 75% on operating
costs.