[sustran] comments on profitability, subsidies, and more

[Wendell Cox]

Comments on latest posting by  Christopher Zegras
>  
>The big issue i see here is how to offer the subsidies to transit operators
>to ensure that they don't result in the massive inefficiencies that plague
>many systems with poor subsidy structures.
>
Key is to use a competitive system for subsidy distribution, and to give no
man and no public agency an exclusive right or any other right to a subsidy.
>
>I think it is unreasonable to assume that rail systems will cover their
>capital costs, including vehicles.  But, they must still be held to strict
>economic analysis, unlike most systems pursued in the United States.  

Change "some" to "all"

>Rail
>system infrastructure can typically be justified for the external benefits
>that it produces (reduced congestion, air pollution, etc.).  

May be so in dense cities that simply do not exist in the US. Hard to show
this impact with virtually any of the new rail systems here.
>
>Show me a big city in the
>>industrialized world without rail transit that tourists want to see; the
>>three biggest metro regions without are all in the US: Houston, Detroit,
>>and Seattle. (I am a native of Seattle, and it is now completely
>>gridlocked.)
>
>I've only been to Seattle once, but from what I understand it is a pretty
>big tourist attraction.  
>
When the rail system opens in Seattle (funding now set), we can presume that
it will become even bigger. Watch out in Vancouver Setty ... all those
tourists will be headed to Seattle instead (which will have the newer system).
>
>>I am not saying that these investments were a waste, because 
>>the alternatives would not have been better bus services or
>>intracity rail systems inherently more efficient than suburban
>>peak-hour peak-direction oriented rail systems. At least these new 
>>systems have been attractive enough to get people out of their cars. 
>
>>The real alternatives would have been more freeways and a more decayed 
>>central city. 
>
>Not necessarily.  One could argue that the Washington Metro has increased
>suburban sprawl and promoted a single-use Washington downtown, which turns
>into a desert after dusk.  Not to mention the massive declines in urban bus
>support.
>
Again... the evidence for attraction of auto users to rail is simply not
there in the US --- The test of rail's success in this regard is not how
many people are on the trains, it is how many cars are off the road. Some
studies have shown that the diversion from autos in Washington has been
largely limited to car pool passengers --- no public policy gain at all. 
>>
>>What rail transit bashers have failed to explain is why even areas that
>>could easily support rail transit do not have it; SF and Seattle have
>>corridors with 50,000 bus rides a day, 
>
>Cities in Brazil have corridors with 25,000 bus rides an hour! I don't
>consider myself a rail-basher, but below passenger thresholds of 20,000
>pax/hr (most studies actually argue higher thresholds), quality bus services
>are more cost effective.
>
Curitiba's best bus corridor handles 290,000 per day. In the good old days
(1985). SF has both the BART system and the Muni light rail system --- 4
lines carry only 120,000 daily --- an average of 30,000 per corridor.
Granted, they all converge for a mile or so. If there are other 50,000
corridors, it's too bad Muni didn't put the rail there instead.

>>I do agree that the existence of the jitneys in Miami and New York 
>>shows that transit is inadequate, but the solution is to integrate
>>them, like is now being done in Miami, not throw away the existing system. 
>>The jitneys do not serve the same markets as the rail system;
>>affluent suburbanites will ride MetroRail, they will not ride a 12
>>passenger van.  If anything the Miami experience only supports my
>>point that the needs of the low income city dweller have traditionally
>>been ignored.
>
>A big problem I see in the bus-rail debate is one of equity, urban bus
>services being cutback (i.e., Wash, DC, L.A, Miami) in favor of expensive
>rail serving the upper classes with huge subsidies (are those $12.00-a-ride
>subsidy rumors for LA rail true?,

That's probably Metrolink --- the commuter rail operation, whose subsidy per
passenger could be that high if you include the capital costs. We normally
don't include capital costs in the US because that's presumed to be free.
The other three LA lines --- Red, Blue & Green have much lower subsidies ---
hard to believe operating and capital subsidy combined could exceed $5.00 on
any.

Would like to join Setty and Dr. Mohan for the beer....

Best regards,
Wendell Cox

WENDELL COX CONSULTANCY
International Public Policy, Economics, Labour, Transport & Strategic Planning
The Public Purpose: Internet Public Policy Journal
http://www.publicpurpose.com
Voice +1 618 632 8507; Fax  +1 618 632 8538
P.O. Box 8083;. Belleville, Illinois 62222 USA