[sustran] Re: More on Denver thread

[Todd Litman]

Mr. Cox's arguement reflect the assumptions that:

* Increased wealth leads to increased automobile ownership and
lower-density development.

* Increased automobile ownership and lower-density development lead to
reduced transit use and cost effectiveness.

This leads to the conclusion that North American suburbs represent the
optimal transportation/land use system that all consumers wish to attain.
There is plenty of evidence that these assumptions are true, but there are
also intreguing indications that they are neither universal or without
limits or alternatives. Rather, there is evidence that at least some
wealthy people prefer a less automobile-dependent community, particularly
if they have a high quality level of transit service. Let me give just a
few of the indications that this is true that I've run across:

* U.S. transit ridership has grown at a faster rate that automobile travel
during the last five years, despite growth in consumer wealth. 

* Property values in traditional urban neighborhoods in Seattle, Portland,
San Francisco and other cities have increased dramatically, provided that
those areas have other attributes valued by residents such as safety, good
schools and prestige. This suggests that a portion of the value that
households placed on moving to the suburbs reflected social conditions, not
their physical attributes. (Decisions Data, Puget Sound Housing Preference
Study, Puget Sound Regional Council (www.psrc.org), 1994.)

* Home buyers are willing to pay a premium for housing located in New Urban
communities. (Mark Eppli and Charles C. Tu, Valuing the New Urbanism; The
Impact of New Urbanism on Prices of Single-Family Homes, Urban Land
Institute (www.uli.org), 2000.)

* Many European cities and towns have redeveloped their urban centers based
on a less automobile-dependent model, often with rail transit as a key
feature. (TRB, Making Transit Work; Insights from Western Europe, Canada
and the United States, Special Report 257, Transportation Research Board,
National Academy Press (www.trb.org), 2001.)

* Residents of communities with rail systems tend to spend significantly
less on transportation than residents of automobile-dependent communities.
This suggests that rail transit "leverages" land use changes that improve
accessiblity and provide consumer benefits. (Barbara McCann, Driven to
Spend; The Impact of Sprawl on Household Transportation Expenses, STPP
(www.transact.org), 2000.)

Property values tend to increase significantly near transit stations,
indicting consumer preferences and economies of agglomeration. (Jeffery J.
Smith, Does Mass Transit Raise Site Values Around Its Stops Enough To Pay
For Itself (Were The Value Captured)?, Geonomy Society
(www.progress.org/geonomy), 2001. Also available at the Victoria Transport
Policy Institute, http://www.vtpi.org.)

I believe that it is quite possible that as households become wealthier,
what many really want to purchase is better quality neighborhoods, more
comfortable-convenient-prestegious transit, and transportation choices such
as carsharing, and that suburban communities with universal automobile
ownership are really a second-best alternative for a significant portion of
consumers.

This all suggests that extrapolating past trends, economic analysis of cost
per line-mile or per passenger-mile, and transportation planning based on
congestion reduction impacts, are simply inadequate to evaluate transit
investments. There appear to be other significant factors, many of which
seem to justify rail transit investments. This is not to say that rail
transit is always superior to buses or highway investments, but it does
means that transportation planners must use a more comprehensive model and
do a better job of listening to consumers. 
 
Best wishes.

-Todd


At 04:15 PM 10/28/01 -0600, you wrote:
>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
>
>
>
>

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