[sustran] Re: Public transport does NOT exclude people

[Wendell Cox]

In short, by not being available to most, public transport does exclude
people. And, by spending on overly ineffective high cost capital projects,
especially in the US, it excludes many more who are denied service because
the more efficient, expanded services that could be provided are not. .

My comments relate largely to the developed world, not just the US, though
obviously there are differences.

As for those who should not be driving... strengthen licensing requirements.
There are few  major cities in the US (much less Europe or Japan) where it
is not possible to live without a car. It is just that people want more than
is available say, in downtown St. Louis, Cleveland or central Los Angeles.
Recall also, that with the exception of Houston, American cities are the
product of urban planning to a large degree.

DEMOGRAPHIA & THE PUBLIC PURPOSE (Wendell Cox Consultancy)
http://www.demographia.com (Demographics & Land Use)
http://www.publicpurpose.com (Public Policy & Transport))
Telephone: +1.618.632.8507 - Facsimile: +1.810.821.8134
PO Box 841 - Belleville, IL 62222 USA
----- Original Message -----
From: Brendan Finn <bfinn at singnet.com.sg>
To: <sustran-discuss at jca.ax.apc.org>
Sent: Friday, 06 July, 2001 00:23
Subject: [sustran] Public transport does NOT exclude people


> In reply to Wendell's statement :
>
> "Actually, public transport excludes a much larger percentage of the
> people".
>
> Public transport does NOT exclude people. It offers services to people
> needing mobility (or access, let's not get caught in the semantics). The
> extent to which it can meet the needs of the people in any given area can
be
> linked to :
>
> a) The land use policies and activity location decisions (past and
current)
> b) The degree of regulation on the public transport provision
> c) The extent to which public transport is allowed to meet the need
> d) The degree of underpricing of private transport in terms of full
societal
> cost, and whether this is counterbalanced by financial support for public
> transport
> e) The culture of promotion of the car.
>
> Thus, we find that in some countries the public transport serves the
people
> quite well, and in others it doesn't. In some countries, it USED to serve
> the people quite well, and then it has been :
>
> a) Starved of finances so that it deteriorates (e.g. republics of the
Former
> Soviet Union)
> b) "Reformed" in a manner that destabilised the collective offer (e.g.
> Santiago, parts of the UK)
> c) Had its finances constrained so that it could not take on the growth
> opportunities (e.g. Dublin)
> d) Sidelined by a pro-car policy (e.g. Beijing)
> e) Prevented from new initiatives to protect the incumbent operators
>
> And, Surprise! Surprise! people turn to cars and the city planners
respond.
>
> Where public transport does not meet the needs of the people, I don't
think
> it is because public transport inherently excludes people.
>
> Let me finish with three remarks :
>
> 1) With respect, in such debates, can we please consider the USA as just
one
> more country among the 250+ ? We can learn good and bad from it, but it is
> neither the only way nor the state of all nations. "The few that don't
have
> cars" tend to be quite numerous in most parts of the world.
>
> 2) The difficulty for people without cars to access job opportunities
> reflects the placement of business at locations easy to access by car,
which
> strongly reinforces the car dependency culture. But if we really want to
> talk about exclusion, then it is the non-work journeys that are relevant.
>
> 3) Eric Britton remarks that "the real majority of all people should not
be
> driving". These are the many people who have once shown the core
competence
> to make a vehicle stop, go, turn etc., but have neither the
spatial/traffic
> awareness nor the self-control that can adequately manage the complex
> scenarios they are undertaking. Perhaps some may be better drivers with
> better tuition and stronger penalties.
>
> I would suggest, however, that the real reason they continue to drive is
> that society has effectively told them, "It's OK, we can live with the
road
> kill. Live the dream and buy a car." So they tell themselves, "I'm fine,
> I've never (well almost never) had a smash I couldn't walk away from".
Would
> you be as happy to have such a motley crew acting as, say, your surgeon,
the
> button pushers at your local nuclear power plant, your defence lawyer, or
> even your cook ?
>
> When the large number of people who shouldn't be driving are finally taken
> off the road, they'll be mighty interested in what public transport has to
> offer them, and not just on a dial-a-ride basis with previous day booking.
>
> Yours sincerely,
>
>
>
> Brendan Finn.
> ______________________________________________________
>
> Please note contact details as follows :
>
> Address : 28, Leonie Hill, #02-28 Leonie Towers, Singapore 239227
> Mobile : +65.94332298     Tel : +65.7340260   Fax/Tel : +65.7340412
> e-mail :  bfinn at singnet.com.sg        Website  :
> http://www.europrojects.ie/etts
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Wendell Cox" <wcox at publicpurpose.com>
> To: <sustran-discuss at jca.ax.apc.org>
> Sent: 06 July 2001 06:26
> Subject: [sustran] Re: a bias against drivers?
>
>
> > Actually, public transport excludes a much larger percentage of the
> people.
> >
> > Let us take the average American urbanized area of 1 million for
example.
> > Generally, the 95 percent or so of people with access to cars can get to
> 100
> > percent of the jobs --- we could call this an Auto Employment Access
Index
> > of 95 - this means 5 percent are excluded. Auto competitive transit
> service
> > (let us say a 40 minute ride, nearly double that of the average auto
> > commute) is available, on average, to less than 15 percent of jobs,
> assuming
> > the average downtown employment share of 10 percent. On the assumption
> that
> > 100 percent of the residences are within walking distance of transit (a
> > highly optimistic assumption, since in Portland only 78 percent are),
that
> > gives us a Transit Employment Index of 15 --- this means 85 percent are
> > excluded. Do the walk and cycle index and it wont even match that.
> >
> > With respect to the very few who dont have cars, perhaps the best
approach
> > is to follow the proposals of the Democratic Leadership Council, largely
> > endorsed by President Clinton, that would implement financial incentives
> to
> > universalize access to autos. For those not able to drive, we should
> provide
> > good dial a ride systems.
> >
> > I suspect if you calculate modal Employment Access Indexes for European
> > cities and for that matter affluent Asian cities, you will generally
find
> > the auto number considerably higher than the transit number. The
> comparison
> > will be less stark than in the US, Canada and Australia, but it will
still
> > be generally stark.
> >
> >
> > DEMOGRAPHIA & THE PUBLIC PURPOSE (Wendell Cox Consultancy)
> > http://www.demographia.com (Demographics & Land Use)
> > http://www.publicpurpose.com (Public Policy & Transport))
> > Telephone: +1.618.632.8507 - Facsimile: +1.810.821.8134
> > PO Box 841 - Belleville, IL 62222 USA
>