[sustran] comments on profitability, subsidies, and more

[Wendell Cox]

Comments on Eric Bruun comments...

>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.
>
I, in the most polite terms, reject and resent the implication that I am
obsessed with profits. I am obsessed with getting the most value for public
money. 

>But Mr. Cox is against all rail
>transit investment, which does not follow.  Sprawl is a public policy
>problem, not a technological one. 

That may be your perception, but not the reality. I only oppose rail where
there are better alternatives. The land use situation in the US is such that
for virtually any new corridor, conventional rail is likely to be inferior
as a strategy. 
>
>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.

And, at 290,000 per day and 19,000 per hour, who can argue with that?

>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.

Nonetheless, the percentage of pkms carried by transit in Seattle, and
projected in the overly optimistic projections is considerably below the
percentage of transportation investment over the period in transit.
Proportion seems to be in the eye of the beholder.

Finally... a note for Eric....

I don't have a problem in your disagreeing with me. I do, however, object to
inferential or direct mis-characterization of my views. It may support
points more effectively, but, shall we say, falls somewhat short of the
standards of intellectual honesty that would be best observed.

I do not intend to be confrontational, just to make an important point. 

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