[sustran] Re: More on Denver thread

[Wendell Cox]

This debate could rage for years. After sending my original note, I was
sorry that I had not clarified the point. My point had to do with the former
"colonies" --- US, Canada, New Zealand and Australia, where the land use
tends to make transit investments real losers and incapable of competing
with highways. Elsewhere this may not be the case. Especially in the
developing world, authorities need to understand that the only hope for
limiting the growth of auto use as people become more affluent is to provide
comprehensive region wide transit systems that make people NOT WANT to buy
cars. This means providing as much public transport as possible within the
constrained budgets availalbe, it means priority for buses, jitneys,
rickshaws and it means it is time to stop building Metro systems that cannot
sustainably provide an alternative to the automobile for most of the trips.

Of course, I disagree with Todd. I am quite of the view that cost per
passenger mile is an appropriate measure. I wonder if Mark Delucci realizes
the blunder he made? Presume he will soon be clarifying his research.

Meanwhile, my offer remains outstanding, though limited to the former
colonies;


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: Todd Litman <litman at vtpi.org>
To: <sustran-discuss at jca.ax.apc.org>
Sent: Friday, 26 October, 2001 10:11
Subject: [sustran] Re: More on Denver thread


>
> Neither costs per line-mile nor costs per passenger-mile are appropriate
> units of comparision between highway and rail project. (This is similar to
> comparing housing investments based only on land costs while ignoring
> differences in construction, utility and tax costs.) A better unit is cost
> per passenger trip, which includes additional costs such as parking and
> vehicle expenses. The best unit is a comparision between the incremental
> benefits and incremental costs of each project (i.e., Net Present Value).
>
> Both urban highway and urban transit projects are expensive. Delucci made
> the mistake of comparing average transit costs with average highway costs,
> rather than under urban conditions, which is where major transit
> investments make sense.
>
> For discussion see the "Comprehensive Transportation Evaluaton",
"Measuring
> Transportation" and "Least Cost Planning" chapters of our Encyclopedia
> (http://www.vtpi.org/tdm).
>
>
>
> At 03:30 PM 10/25/01 -0500, you wrote:
> >You get the last word Eric.
> >
> >Dont have the time to go further into it at this time, except to say that
> >after having challenged people on a couple of lists to come up with a
single
> >highway project that is more expensive than a competing rail project on a
> >cost per pkm basis, there have been no valid takers. A few people have
> >provided examples, but always fall into the logical error of comparing
cost
> >per mile rather than cost per pkm. I know that there are all sorts of
ways
> >to distort economics to come to such conclusions, but, as many know here,
> >even Mark Delucci of UCBerkeley, no highway advocate, found total  costs
> >(direct and external) of transit to be higher than that of highways.
> >
> >
> >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: <BruunB at aol.com>
> >To: <sustran-discuss at jca.ax.apc.org>
> >Sent: Thursday, 25 October, 2001 16:22
> >Subject: [sustran] Re: More on Denver thread
> >
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> I guess I don't want Wendell to have the last word. I would like to
> >elaborate
> >> on these points a little further.
> >>
> >> In a message dated 10/25/01 2:34:34 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> >> wcox at publicpurpose.com writes:
> >>
> >> << 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.
> >>
> >> We all agree that the rail capital investment can be quite high. I also
> >agree
> >> that public transport agencies can often view these investments as
"free
> >> money", but it is not only the public transport agency's viewpoint that
> >> counts here. These investments can also be justified as alternatives to
> >> highway projects that are also expensive and have higher social and
> >> environmental costs.
> >>
> >> << 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.
> >>   >>
> >>
> >> Trunk bus systems can work fine too, but they also need some investment
in
> >> separation from general traffic and traffic signal pre-emption if they
are
> >to
> >> work reliably and with attractive speed. But they do not work as well
as
> >rail
> >> systems when demand is quite high and the number of buses required
becomes
> >> very large. But the real operating performance difference comes in
systems
> >> with highly peaked demand.
> >> Rail consists can have additional cars added at low marginal cost to
> >increase
> >> peak capacity, whereas every unit of bus capacity costs equally much as
> >the
> >> last.
> >>
> >> Eric
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Todd Litman, Director
> Victoria Transport Policy Institute
> "Efficiency - Equity - Clarity"
> 1250 Rudlin Street
> Victoria, BC, V8V 3R7, Canada
> Phone & Fax: 250-360-1560
> E-mail:  litman at vtpi.org
> Website: http://www.vtpi.org