[sustran] Re: [sustran] More on Denver thread

[Wendell Cox]

My hypothesis has to do with direct costs... not external costs. And.. DeLucci finds that even with external costs, public transport alternatives are more expensive in the US.


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: Mark Diesendorf 
  To: sustran-discuss at jca.ax.apc.org 
  Sent: Sunday, 28 October, 2001 23:15
  Subject: [sustran] [sustran] More on Denver thread


  My former colleagues and I at Institute for Sustainable Futures, University of Technology, Sydney, have calculated the effect of land value on the economics of cars, buses and trains in Sydney, Australia. We found that the highest cost, in $ per passenger-km travelled, was that of motor cars, followed by heavy rail and then buses. The paper was on the ISF website until recently, www.isf.uts.edu.au/, but the site was revamped after I left the institute a month ago and the paper has temporarily disappeared. No doubt it will be restored shortly.

  Recently, I went back to our original data and calculated the user charges and subsidies to cars, trains and buses in Sydney. Here is the abstract of a paper I submitted recently to an international transport conference.

  "The Effect of Land Costs on the Economics of Urban Transportation Systems"
  Using Sydney, Australia, as a case study, this paper reports on calculations of the costs of automobiles, heavy rail and buses, taking into account the costs of land, infrastructure, rolling stock, operations and maintenance. Land is found to be the principal contributor to the total direct economic cost to society of transportation by automobile. This total cost, measured in cents per passenger per kilometre travelled, is about 1.5 times the cost of train travel and is about double the cost of bus travel. All three urban transport modes receive public subsidies. The annual subsidy to automobiles is largest in terms of billions of dollars and second largest (after heavy rail) in terms of dollars per passenger per km travelled. These results suggest that, in Sydney and many other cities where land costs and car use are high, the economic optimal mix of transport modes would contain a smaller contribution from automobiles and a larger contribution from trains and buses. 

  Thus our research in Sydney seems to contradict the Denver hypothesis.




    With respect to new rail systems, it can generally be posited that the
    subsidy of trips that are all or part on rail will be more highly subsidized
    than those on buses, due to the very high capital subsidy for rail. US
    transit agencies treat capital as manna from on high --- something free that
    does not have to be accounted for.

    Whatever one can do with feeder buses to rail can also be done with feeder
    buses to trunk line buses. One of the more intractible problems in the US
    has been the bias of transport planners in comparing modes.

    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


  Dr Mark Diesendorf
  Director, Sustainability Centre Pty Ltd
  PO Box 221, Epping NSW 1710, Australia
  phone: +61 2 9801 2976; fax: +61 2 9801 2986
  email: mark at sustainabilitycentre.com.au
  web: www.sustainabilitycentre.com.au 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/private/sustran-discuss/attachments/20011031/7ca69bcc/attachment.htm