[sustran] Rules of Responsible Discourse - Are Parking Costs External?

[Todd Alexander Litman]

Mr. Oster is not observing some basic rules of responsible discourse.

1. He posts a personal message to a list. If he wants to share ideas with 
me directly, and arrange meetings in Washington DC, he should send an email 
to me. If he wants to share information with a list, he should only include 
information of broad interest.

2. He is criticizing my work on multiple lists, the Internet equivalent of 
gossip, but as far as I can tell he has not sharing my responses to his 
criticisms with each list, depriving readers of a balanced dialogue.

3. He is criticizing me without having bothered read my publications or 
learn about the issue. Yesterday morning he insulted my work (calling it 
"bogus" and biased) and raised a number of specific objections that I 
pointed out are incorrect, which indicates he has not read my material 
carefully. For example, he didn't understand the difference between 
per-vehicle-mile impacts and per-passenger-mile impacts when comparing car 
and motorcycle parking costs, or why motorcycles really don't usually 
reduce traffic congestion in North American conditions, or that concerns 
about transportation diversity, barrier effect and negative impacts of 
sprawl are not my original ideas but reflect an extensive and growing body 
of literature. Rather than acknowledging my response, yesterday afternoon 
he broadcasts another criticism of my analysis, that parking costs are not 
really external, due to the fact that most people use automobiles and so 
the costs are ultimately borne by users as a group. His comments reflect a 
basic misunderstanding of economic theory. These issues are addressed in my 
report, "Transportation Cost and Benefit Analysis," in the section on cost 
categories.

So, let me offer my "Economics 101" response to Oster's claim that unpriced 
vehicle parking not really an external cost because the costs are 
ultimately borne by users as a group. This claim would be appropriate if we 
are only concerned with horizontal equity at a group level ("your group is 
getting more or less of a fair share compared with my group"), but if we 
are interested in individual level equity ("you are getting more or less of 
a fair share than others"), then we should be concerned that some 
people  own fewer cars and drive less than others, and so overpay their 
fair share of parking costs. Since lower income households tend to own 
fewer cars than higher income households, this is also vertically 
inequitable (unfair to disadvantaged people).

There is another important issue. Economic efficiency requires that prices 
(what an individual consumer pays for a particular unit of consumption) 
equal marginal cost (the incremental cost of that consumption). Regardless 
of whether or not unpriced parking is unfair, it is clearly inefficient, 
leading to economically excessive automobile ownership and use, which 
exacerbates various other problems, including traffic congestion, accidents 
and sprawl. When motorists pay directly rather than indirectly for parking 
automobile travel typically declines by 15-25%, which means that a 
significant portion of the transportation problems we face could be 
addressed simply by pricing parking more efficiently.

If the practice of "bundling" parking with other commercial transactions 
were really fair and efficient there would be no reason to have generous 
minimum parking requirements in zoning codes, or for local governments to 
use local taxes to subsidize on- and off-street parking. Unpriced parking 
is certainly convenient to motorists, and once it becomes a 
well-established user benefit it is difficult for an individual business to 
withhold it (for example, to start charging employees or customers for 
parking), but most economists would agree that it violates the principles 
of an efficient market.

I welcome legitimate questions or information about my analysis that Mr. 
Oster wants to share. But please refrain from insulting me and my work on 
Internet lists, and please bother to read and try to understand my 
materials before criticizing them.


Best New Years wishes to all,
-Todd Litman

At 11:15 PM 12/30/2004 -0500, Daryl Oster wrote:
>Todd,
>
>If you follow your logic far enough you end up at the point proving that
>cars are subsidizing trains through the cost of parking.  Most parking is
>"free" that is it is provided by the business owner to attract business to
>their store.  The cost of the parking lot is part of the business cost, and
>added to the product or services provided - so the one who parks at the
>store pays for their parking when they buy the products at the store.  There
>are many other transportation costs embodied in the cost of products in
>addition to the cost of parking.  Much of the freight in the US is moved by
>ship and rail, and the cost of that shipping is added to the product cost,
>and paid by those who park in the parking lots (cars).  Therefore cars are
>subsidizing rail infrastructure.
>
>
>IMO, the market is mostly fair and impartial, and in the US market trains
>were compared with cars long ago; guess what -- the trains lost.  You are
>correct - the contest was NOT fair - it was biased in favor of trains.  The
>railroads had much more clout than automotive innovators at the start of the
>contest -- railroads had market share AND tremendous political power (they
>still do), yet cars won the comparison - and they are winning all over the
>world.  The situation today is vary similar with innovative transportation
>modes - still in experiment and development.  It is now the car market that
>is peaking, instead of the train and bike market that peaked in the early
>1900s.
>
>I understand why you so vehemently defend your untenable position.  You have
>selected a good market niche to work - the railroads still have plenty of
>money to use to hang on to their still sizable global market!  Your efforts
>are a stop-gap tool for the railroaders.  Lovins has chosen his niche to
>work in promoting his hypercar, his work being supported by automobile
>interests and government.  This is a more defendable position than the one
>you are in; as the battle between car and train is essentially over in the
>US- the new battle is be between aircraft and car, and new technology like
>aPRT and ETT. A better position yet would be with the best innovators.
>
>In China, cars have not yet won against trains, and it is likely both cars
>and trains in China will be beat at the same time there by new tech. The top
>transportation engineering university in China was focused on rail tech.
>During the last 3 years they have shifted there focus on new transportation
>technology as part of the 10th national 5 year plan of China.  The central
>government of China has mandated that all new investments in the key
>national labs must be high-tech, leading edge technology -- not following
>technology like steel rail - or cars.  China is now leap-frogging into the
>lead with fifth generation transport technology development programs at
>their top rated transportation university and key national lab.
>
>The ETT program at SWJTU is being led by Dr. Zhang Yaoping, the first et3
>licensee in China (there are now 9 et3 licenses in China).  The Chinese
>fully understands the benefits and costs of ETT, as by their invitation we
>spent 5 months out of the last two years in China.  We were invited to
>presented ETT at the highest levels of the scientific and engineering
>community of China, and there is wide agreement to the likely benefits and
>costs.
>
>I am glad to learn you are ready and willing to get on with objective
>analysis of ETT.  I will be at the ATRA annual meeting in DC on the 9th of
>January, the first day of TRB. Perhaps we can meet, and I can provide you
>with up to date information that is not available on the et3 website.   For
>information on joining ARTA see the website http://www.advancedtransit.org .
>
>
>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: Todd Alexander Litman [mailto:litman at vtpi.org]
> > Sent: Friday, December 24, 2004 9:41 AM
> > To: et3 at et3.com
> > Subject: RE: Draft proposal to Principal Voices - Comparing Costs of Modes
> >
> >
> > As I pointed out, and as elaborated in my paper, it is unfair to compare
> >
> > overall average roadway costs with rail transit costs, since automobile
> >
> > transportation also requires parking facilities, and because rail transit
> >
> > is provided only in urban areas where automobile costs are far higher than
> >
> > average. When compared fairly, based on the total public subsidy required
> >
> > to provide transportation in a particular situation, public transit is
> >
> > often cheaper than accommodating additional automobile travel, including
> >
> > land opportunity costs, roadway costs and parking costs.
> >
> >
> > I suggest that you focus on emphasizing the positive features of your
> >
> > preferred mode. It is unnecessary to criticize other modes to justify
> >
> > innovation. The way you criticized rail and people who it is both
> >
> > inaccurate and misguided (See my paper, "Evaluating Criticism of Rail
> >
> > Transit". Also note that the "Road Gang", which lobbies for highway
> >
> > construction has far more resources than rail transit lobbyists.). If
> >
> > evacuated tube transport is really superior we will be able to demonstrate
> >
> > that with objective economic analysis rather than insults slung through
> >
> > cyberspace.
> >
> >
> >
> > Best holiday wishes,
> >
> > -Todd Litman
> >
> >
> >


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