[sustran] Draft proposal to Principal Voices - Comparing Costs of Modes

[Todd Alexander Litman]

I feel obliged to respond to the claim made below that rail is subsidized 
50 times more than roads, out of concern that some people may actually 
believe it. Let me use the U.S. as an example.

In 2000, transportation expenditures by federal, state and local 
governments totaled $167 billion in 2000, of which $104 billion was for 
roads and only $16.7 billion for rail transit, plus about $1.2 billion of 
Amtrak. By that measure, highways receive about six times as much subsidy 
as rail. You could argue that two-thirds of roadway expenditures are from 
motorist user fees, but on the other hand, automobile parking subsidies 
(costs not borne directly by users) are estimated in FHWA studies to total 
$200 to $500 billion in current dollars, so combined road and parking 
subsidies are 15 to 40 times greater than rail transit subsidies, depending 
on assumptions.

In addition, railroads traditionally pay rent and taxes on their 
rights-of-way, which roads traditionally do not. The economic value of 
roadway land is substantial, approximately equal to roadway construction 
and maintenance costs. Failing to charge rent or taxes on this land is a 
substantial, but hidden subsidy of space-intensive modes such as automobile 
travel. Taking into account this subsidy, highways receive 20 to 50 times 
more subsidy than rail.

Of course, there is far more travel by road than by rail, so subsidy per 
passenger-mile is relatively high for rail transit, but to be fair this 
comparison should be done for a particular travel condition, since rail 
transit occurs in congested urban conditions where automobile travel costs 
are far higher than average due to high road and parking facility costs 
(not to mention other externalities such as air pollution and barrier 
effects to nonmotorists). Expanding urban highways typically costs $0.25 to 
$1.00 per additional peak-period vehicle-mile, plus parking subsidies that 
average $5 to $15 per day. Rail transit subsidies per passenger-mile, 
although substantial, are generally lower than road and parking subsidies 
under urban-peak conditions. I suspect that you would find the same pattern 
in other countries.

For more discussion see "Transportation Cost and Benefit Analysis" 
(http://www.vtpi.org/tca) and the "Comparing Transit and Automobile Costs" 
section of "Evaluating Public Transit Benefits and Costs" 
(http://www.vtpi.org/tranben.pdf).

I think it is generally a mistake to criticize a particular mode as being 
inefficient or unsustainable. A better approach is to recognize that nearly 
every mode can play a role in an efficient and sustainable transportation 
system, including walking, cycling, public transit, inter-city rail, 
highways, and perhaps some new modes yet to be developed. The key is to 
determine which is most cost effective for a particular situation, taking 
into account all benefits and costs. I cannot say how Evacuated Tube 
Transport costs compare with other modes because we lack operating 
examples. It would be interesting to perform a comprehensive analysis.


Best holiday wishes,
-Todd Litman


At 08:05 PM 12/22/2004 -0500, Daryl Oster wrote:
>Vittal and Eric,
>
>Thanks for pointing out my lax search method with respect to Ellatuvalapil
>Sreedharan, I should have considered that he may not use his first name.  I
>now have plenty of references, and concur his expert status is warranted.
>
>Eric,
>I am glad that you agree that Wendell Cox would be a good balance for a well
>rounded debate.  And there is a need for at least a third voice for
>transportation, a strong voice to represent advanced transportation
>technology.
>
>It is clear to many of us that roads are not sustainable, and have passed
>the point of diminishing returns; most agree change is needed.   Even if it
>could be shown that trains, bicycles, and muscle offer energy and
>environmental sustainability (there is plenty of evidence to suggest they do
>not), it is proven they are not socially sustainable.  In spite of being
>subsidized 50 times more than road, trains are still loosing market share to
>cars.  Trains once had market share in Japan, Europe, and the US -- now
>roads have market share because cars are more sustainable.
>
>The millions in lobby and campaign money of rail interests have done their
>damage - they have poisoned the opinions of politicians, bureaucrats, and
>educators with their: "smoke and mirrors" presentations, outright lies, and
>"free" gifts of dinners, travel, accommodations, and RFP drafting
>assistance.
>
>To stick ones head in the sand and say: "we must do something, even if it is
>not optimum -- let's go back to what "worked" in the past" is foolish,
>especially since there is credible evidence (like ETT, and other sustainable
>means) proving there are sustainable alternatives that can be implemented
>easier than returning to trains, bikes, and muscle.
>
>You, I and others justify all the air flights, all the bus, train, and car
>travel because we are using the best tools available to disseminate our
>ideals.  Guess what -- EVERYONE thinks the same way -- our reasons for high
>energy consumption are justified, and most other peoples reasons are not
>justified.   If all people in the past had followed your example, and
>instead of implementing prudent innovation, returned to old ways whenever
>new ways encountered problems, we would still be in the Stone Age, the
>planet would be stripped of trees, and starvation would be the norm.
>
>Just because you have wasted time in the past to chase down possibilities
>that turned out to be dead ends -- do not make the mistake of going down a
>proven dead end, without at least fully checking out the most promising
>options.
>
>
>Daryl Oster
>(c) 2004  all rights reserved.  ETT, et3, MoPod, "space travel on earth"
>e-tube, e-tubes,  and the logos thereof are trademarks and or service marks
>of et3.com Inc.  For licensing information contact:    et3 at et3.com ,
>www.et3.com  POB 1423, Crystal River FL 34423-1423  (352)257-1310
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: sustran-discuss-bounces+et3=et3.com at list.jca.apc.org
> > [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+et3=et3.com at list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf Of
> > EcoPlan, Paris
> > Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2004 4:55 AM
> > To: 'Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport'
> > Subject: [sustran] Draft proposal to Principal Voices - Quick progress
> > report
> >
> > Wednesday, December 22, 2004, Paris, France, Europe
> >
> >
> >
> > Dear Sustainable Friends,
> >
> >
> >
> > In addition to several much appreciated private letters of cautious
> > encouragement on this proposed initiative of 21 Dec, I have received in
> > the last day the following two mailings from proponents of advanced
> > transportation technologies, in a phrase free standing new systems based
> > on “new surface transport infrastructure”.  I would like to comment
> > briefly because I believe this is one of the central pillars that we have
> > to deal with one way or another as we make our important decisions about
> > the future of the sector.
> >
> >
> >
> > Personally I have a great weakness for these proposals and the engineering
> > technologies that they bring to the fore. On a number of occasions during
> > my career I have carried out pretty extensive international surveys
> > looking at the category in general and more specifically things like PRT,
> > GRT, DRT, ITT, ATT, monorails, skycabs by many names, maglev, air cushion
> > vehicles, accelerating moving sidewalks, pneumatic tube transport, and the
> > long list goes on. But as my respected colleague and a central force in
> > this movement, Jerry Schneider, Professor Emeritus of Civil Engineering
> > and Urban Design and Planning at the University of Washington (see below)
> > has said on numerous occasions: “The problem is implementing it."
> >
> >
> >
> > That’s it and from the horse’s mouth! To whit my regretful conclusion as a
> > hands-on advisor of policy: given the immediate needs of sustainability
> > and our societies, we have to put this on the back burner for now and
> > concentrate on what we can do with the infrastructure we have.  Sad and
> > possibly even narrow conclusion that it may seem.  Fortunately however,
> > there is a huge amount that we can in fact achieve working within the
> > broad envelope of the infrastructure we have in hand, so to my mind the
> > challenge is to get on with that task.
> >
> >
> >
> > Mr. Daryl Oster, an active proponent of “ETT” and "space travel on earth",
> > for his part goes quite a bit further than I do in his criticism of the
> > way in which the Voices  people have set out to organize their initiative:
> > starting with a rather unjust hit on the qualifications of the respected
> > Mr. Ellatuvalapil Sreedharan to be one of the Voices.  I could not agree
> > less. The object of any truly creative dialogue, at least as I understand
> > it, is to trot out a wide range of views and perspectives, and indeed it
> > would be a major error if we packed the jury in any way. Not only is Mr.
> > Sreedharan a person of real accomplishment in our sector, but also by the
> > way if you Google “Sreedharan  + “transport OR transportation” you get no
> > less than 2830 call-ups this morning. So we can put that one to rest, eh?
> > ;-)
> >
> >
> >
> > That said Mr. Oster does propose a candidate with international
> > credentials who might indeed make another interesting apex for a debate
> > triangle, Wendell Cox of The Public Purpose
> > <http://www.publicpurpose.com/index.html>  (“To facilitate the ideal of
> > government as the servant of the people by identifying and implementing
> > strategies to achieve public purposes at a cost that is no higher than
> > necessary).  Fine idea Daryl.  I will add him to our short list, not least
> > because of his rigor, persistence, international reach, at times
> > surprising flexibility -- and the fact that at least half the time I for
> > one do not agree with him.  Which of course is the stuff of a good debate.
> >
> >
> >
> > So there we have it for today.  I will let this cook for another 24 hours
> > before dispatching to our contacts there ­ so there is still time for you
> > to share both your criticisms, ideas and even encouragement if there is
> > any of that in your end year larder.  It’s their party of course, but
> > perhaps they will open it up a bit to ensure that it is fully informed,
> > lively, varied and creative ­ the stuff of a really successful party.
> >
> >
> >
> > Salamaat, Shalom, Merry Christmas, and Peace on Earth,
> >
> >
> >
> > Eric Britton
> >
> >
> >
> > PS. You may want to check out the latest bulletin of the ITDP at
> > http://www.itdp.org/. Talk about new transportation ideas and on street
> > progress.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jerry Schneider [mailto:jbs at peak.org]
> > Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2004 10:48 PM
> > To: eric.britton at ecoplan.org
> > Subject: Re: [sustran] Draft proposal to Principal Voices team - For
> > comment
> >
> >
> >
> > At 09:18 AM 12/21/04 -0800, you wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > >snip ------------
> >
> > >These fora and the individuals and groups behind them offer a clear cut,
> >
> > >leading edge, world level state of the art, 21st century awareness of the
> >
> > >issues and the full range of solutions -- and while there is no aversion
> > on
> >
> > >the part of most of us to building new systems and expanding
> > infrastructure
> >
> > >in specific cases, we tend to be far more reserved and I would like to
> > say
> >
> > >sophisticated, and indeed practical, when it comes to better management
> > of
> >
> > >the infrastructure and systems we already have in place. Moreover, we
> > tend
> >
> > >too to be rather ambitious when it comes to the creative integration of
> > new
> >
> > >communications technologies into the overall systemic infrastructure, and
> >
> > >that too might be one of the more promising avenues of the discussions
> > and
> >
> > >debate.
> >
> >
> >
> > One wonders what "new systems" you might have in mind? You are welcome to
> >
> > add my ITT website to your list of promising avenues for discussion.
> >
> >
> >
> >    Best regards,
> >
> >
> >
> >     Jerry
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: sustran-discuss-bounces+eric.britton=ecoplan.org at list.jca.apc.org
> > [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+eric.britton=ecoplan.org at list.jca.apc.org]
> > On Behalf Of Daryl Oster
> > Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2004 6:46 AM
> > To: principalvoices at cnn.com; Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport
> > Cc: policy at advancedtransit.org
> > Subject: [sustran] principal voices
> >
> >
> >
> > To Whom It May Concern:
> >
> >
> >
> > According to your "principal voices" website, the principal voices are
> >
> > "globally-renowned experts".  If this is true, why is it that a Google
> >
> > search for Ellatuvalapil Sreedharan (the principal voice for
> > transportation)
> >
> > turns up ZERO hits?  If you are looking for an expert try the Google
> > search:
> >
> >
> >
> > "Jerry Schneider" +transportation
> >
> >
> >
> > This will turn up over 800 hits leading to Transportation Professor
> >
> > (retired) Jerry Schneider.  Dr. Schneider is likely the most renowned
> > expert
> >
> > on leading edge transportation alternatives.
> >
> >
> >
> > Another Google search:
> >
> >
> >
> > "Wendell Cox" +transportation
> >
> >
> >
> > This search will turn up 11,000 hits on this transportation expert. Why
> > not
> >
> > ask either of these experts to debate with Ellatuvalapil Sreedharan?
> >
> >
> >
> > If this is really a debate, why are the public questions limited to 4, and
> >
> > why is there no criteria on selection? It appears to that the principal
> >
> > voices debates could likely be a showcase for a hidden agenda that will
> >
> > after the fact be claimed to have been an internationally recognized
> > debate.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Daryl Oster
> >
> > (c) 2004  all rights reserved.  ETT, et3, MoPod, "space travel on earth"
> >
> > e-tube, e-tubes,  and the logos thereof are trademarks and or service
> > marks
> >
> > of et3.com Inc.  For licensing information contact:    et3 at et3.com ,
> >
> > www.et3.com  POB 1423, Crystal River FL 34423-1423  (352)257-1310
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > This message has been scanned for viruses and
> > dangerous content by Netsignia Online <http://www.netsignia.net/> , and is
> > believed to be clean.


Sincerely,
Todd Litman, Director
Victoria Transport Policy Institute
"Efficiency - Equity - Clarity"
1250 Rudlin Street
Victoria, BC, V8V 3R7, Canada
Phone & Fax: 250-360-1560
Email: litman at vtpi.org
Website: http://www.vtpi.org