[sustran] comments on profitability, subsidies, and more

[Eric Bruun]

First, an apology to the Professor from Santiago. I should not have
lumped you with Mr. Cox about an obsession with profits. This is what
happens when something is written hastily.


Regarding Wendell Cox comments to my blurb:

I did put my foot in my mouth about Seattle, but through reckless
composition and not separating it from the others; tourists will still go
to Seattle, unlike Houston and Detroit.  But they better have a rental car
and wait in gridlock if they are trying to use the freeways to go anywhere
other than downtown.  It will not last as a tourist destination for long.
I suspect that a lot of the tourism is now Asians that are just passing
through via the airport. 

I certainly agree that some of the rail systems are perhaps promoting
sprawl. I have never denied that.  But Mr. Cox is against all rail
transit investment, which does not follow.  Sprawl is a public policy
problem, not a technological one. 

As for the comments about passenger volumes that justify rail; it is
irrelevant how high the volumes are in poor countries.  In richer
countries the level of service and comfort must be much higher. 
A corridor with 50,000 bus passengers in a rich country might have
an improved level of service and reduced operating costs with a
rail system.

Yes, the Curitiba system is good. Yes, it is more economical than 
building rail.  But in how many cities is it possible to get the
right-of-way and supporting policies they had?  By the way, even
in Curitiba, the volumes are so high that they are looking to put
in surface-level rail on some of the routes.

I just do not buy this generalization that all rail investments are
bad. First, the financial analyses do not include all of the costs
and benefits because they either can not be monetized, or they 
are not even acknowledged.  Did we do fair analyses of all highway
and airport investments? Second, why is the financial analysis
the only basis for a decision?  Why can't the people decide 
that they want a more pleasant place to live and other transportation
options than auto dependency or buses stuck in mixed traffic?

I, for one, will probably never move back to Seattle because I am
a second class citizen there if I am without a car.  Wendell can
be happy because Seattle will have a very puny rail system, relative
to the region's size, for a long time to come, even if it expands. 
Especially when it is adding 500,000 people per decade!

One final comment about the size of these rail investments. The plan
for the Seatle region that went down to defeat in 1995 (highways are
almost never put to the vote) would have costed $6.7 Billion over 16
years, including operating subsidies.  By comparison, over the next
20 years, the region will spend about $40 Billion on highway-related
public expenditures.  The public is spending about at least $5
Billion PER YEAR on their private cars.  So, the rail investment
is actually a pretty small share of passenger transportation spending.
Let us not blow it all out of proportion.  Let's also give some
credit for the households that will be able save money by having
fewer cars.

Eric Bruun