[sustran] Comparing Transportation Costs By Mode

[Todd Alexander Litman]

Mr. Oster and I had nearly the same debate on another list about a 
year ago. I appreciate that he is using my transportation costing 
analysis framework and default values (http://www.vtpi.org/tca ), but 
I think his analysis framework has several critical flaws. Let me 
mention a few key features that I disagree with.

First, Oster reaches the unsurprizing conclusion that if you are to 
travel high mileage and charge a high value of time, automobile 
travel seems cheapest, due to economies of scale (since most 
automobile costs are fixed, average costs decline significantly with 
increased consumption). But this assumes that everybody can and 
should drive high mileage and is based on an excessive value of 
travel time (most travel time cost studies suggest that the value 
should be one-third to one-half prevailing wages during peak periods 
and probably significantly less during off-peak, yet Oster uses 
US$15.00 for everybody, which is probably an order of magnitude too 
high for developing country conditions).

Transportation professionals are realizing that the best 
transportation system maximizes "accessibility" rather than 
"mobility", in other words, it apply strategies such as more 
accessible land use patterns and improved mobility substitutes such 
as telework and delivery services to reduce the need to travel 
(particularly by motor vehicle) (see http://www.vtpi.org/measure.pdf 
). If we evaluate transportation in terms of accessibility rather 
than mobility, then modes such as walking and public transit become 
more valuable because they help support more compact, mixed land use 
development and have low costs when used for short trips. In other 
words, Oster's analysis framework represents the sort of 
self-fulfilling prophesy that results in automobile dependency: if 
you assume that automobile travel is cheapest and best, you can build 
a transportation/land use system which favors that mode so it 
actually becomes cheapest, at least from the users perspective.

Second, Oster's cost framework ignores some of the most significant 
costs of automobile travel, including parking costs, congestion 
costs, and crash costs (including these would nearly double what he 
calculates as vehicle costs). It also fails to account for the much 
higher costs of driving under urban-peak conditions, which suggests 
that even if driving is cheapest on average, under urban-peak 
conditions other modes may be more cost effective. Food costs, which 
he incorporates, is only relevant for people who are eating too 
little, if people are eating too much and benefit from increased 
physical exercise, as is the case in most developed countries and 
even many lower-income countries, than time and calories spent 
walking and cycling represent a benefit rather than cost. I have no 
idea why Oster focuses on kidney disease as the risk associated with 
sedentary living, most studies (including a couple I've been involved 
with, see 
http://www.smartgrowth.bc.ca/downloads/SGBC_Health%20Report%20Final.pdf 
and http://vtpi.org/health.pdf ) indicate that cardiovascular 
diseases is the main risk. The health benefits of increased walking 
and cycling are much larger than Oster's analysis implies, probably 
similar in magnitude to crash reduction benefits, although we 
generally do not try to monetize that impact because the 
relationships are complex. Perhaps a simpler way to quantify it is to 
say that the first 30 minutes a day of active transportation (walking 
and cycling) incurs no time cost.

Third, I think that Oster misrepresents the basic question. It is 
useless to ask, which mode of travel is cheapest and best to 
accommodate, since costs vary significantly depending on the 
situation. It is far better to ask, which mode is most cost effective 
and most appropriate for a particular situation. Walking and cycling 
are most cost effective for shorter trips, particularly in urban 
areas where space is at a premium or by people who are either low 
income or need to increase their physical activity; public transit is 
most cost effective for travel on major urban corridors and between 
cities; and automobile travel is most cost effective for some types 
of trips such as off-peak and rural travel, and when carrying heavy 
loads, although my research indicates that a significant portion of 
automobile travel that occurs in most developed countries results 
from market distortions that underprice driving, and in a more 
efficient transportation market the total amount of driving that 
occurs in developed countries would decline by a third or more 
(see  http://www.vtpi.org/opprice.pdf ).


Best wishes,
-Todd Litman


At 06:32 PM 4/20/2006, Daryl Oster wrote:
 > Is this the "fuel economy" list? The "better car" list?

>This is the sustainable transportation list!! And since cars are presently
>the most sustainable form of transportation, it makes sense to give them a
>little ink once in a while.  But I say that cars can and MUST be greatly
>improved upon; (just as cars have improved upon the sustainability of
>trains, and trains improved upon the sustainability of muscle powered
>transport).
>
> > Technical
> > information about engines is always interesting of course, as are "the
> > facts" about "hype-brid cars", but  talking about "cost" as only, for
> > example, purchase price vs. long-term fuel price, etc is like sooooo last
> > century! (That means "cost" involves many, many factors--and I know Daryl
> > has been challenged on that point before).
>
>Todd,
>Just what costs did I leave out??
>NOTE: in the spreadsheet I recently posted, I included ALL of the costs
>Litman advocates, even though I do not agree with them, and they have not
>been equally applied to bikes and trains.
>If you have costs that should be added to the spreadsheet I submitted,
>please specify them -- that is one reason I posted it.
>
>Also, just what is it about adding up and comparing the costs and benefits
>of different modes that "is like sooooo last century" ?   The world operates
>like that!  And that is the main reason that intercity train use has dropped
>from a 90% market share in the US in 1910, to less than a 1% share today (in
>spite of 30 years of the government paying most of the true cost of people
>who ride trains).
>
> > This discussion started with a posting from Carlos, and I wrote him
> > off-list that hype-brids were, in my opinion, not a step in any direction
> > except the wrong one, because they are overwhelmingly still supposed to be
> > used by individuals and like all other cars have all many negatives
> > besides "tailpipe emissions" for this reason and many others. So they just
> > confuse people, and lots of California politicians buy huge hybrids, and
> > it is all such a bunch of nonsense... the Audi Awhatever may be a "great"
> > car but there is great about it.
> > Todd Edelman
> > International Coordinator
> > On the Train Towards the Future!
> > Green Idea Factory,
> > a member of World Carfree Network
>
>BTW Todd, this is NOT a car-free list either, nor is it a train list.  It IS
>about improving the sustainability of transportation - especially in the
>HIUGE developing markets in the Far East -- cars/roads are contributing, but
>they are reaching the point of marginal value.
>
>Sustainability is NOT about being "car-free" or about "Train Towards The
>Future", it IS about dramatically improving the efficiency, ecology, and
>social sustainability of transportation.  Ideas to accomplish this must be
>measured on a total benefit/total cost basis -- not with hyperbole and
>childish ridicule.
>
>
>Daryl Oster
>(c) 2006  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: POB 1423, Crystal River
>FL 34423-1423  (352)257-1310, et3 at et3.com , www.et3.com
>
>
>
>
>================================================================
>SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, 
>equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing 
>countries (the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, 
>the main focus is on urban transport policy in Asia.


Sincerely,
Todd Alexander Litman
Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org)
litman at vtpi.org
Phone & Fax 250-360-1560
1250 Rudlin Street, Victoria, BC, V8V 3R7, CANADA
"Efficiency - Equity - Clarity"

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060422/803bb0a9/attachment.html