[sustran] A bias against drivers?

[Todd Litman]

Getting back to the starting point of this exchange, I am pleased that Mr.
Cox considers my definition not altogether unreasonable, but I respectfully
disagree that giving emphasis to the quality of the pedestrian environment
reflects a bias against drivers. Walking is the most basic form of
transportation which virtually everybody depends on, including people who
think of themselves primarily as drivers. Admittedly, in a "perfect"
suburban landscape with abundant off-street parking at every destination a
motorist could travel for days without ever depending on public pedestrian
facilities, but in practice, improving the pedestrian/cycle environment can
be one of the most effective ways to benefit motorists, by providing more
convenient access to a larger pool of parking spaces and by allowing us a
wider range of travel choices (walking, cycling, transit), and for
recreational walking (even in Texas, famous for being proudly
automobile-dependent, the most popular tourist destination is now San
Antonio's Riverwalk).

I think it is wrong to suggest that investements in walking, cycling or
public transit  necessarily conflict with the interests of motorists. In
many cases, such investments are the most cost effective way to improve
transportation choices and reduce congestion (see "Least Cost Planning" and
"Social Benefits of Public Transit" in our Online TDM Encyclopedik,
available free at http://www.vtpi.org.

It is interesting to consider to what degree current transportation choices
and activities are affected by market distortions, and to what degree they
would change in a more efficient and neutral market. I have written two
papers that explore these issues: "Transportation Market Distortions - A
Survey" and "Socially Optimal Transport Prices and Markets", both are also
available at http://www.vtpi.org. I would love to get feedback on since I
plan to prepare them for to submit to a journal over the next few weeks.
Here are a few highlights from that analysis for the U.S:

* Fuel taxes and registration fees only cover about 2/3 of total U.S.
roadway expenese (local roads are locally funded). Fuel taxes would need to
increase by about 42% just to cover these additional direct expenese, and
more if other roadway services (traffic policing and emergency services)
were charged to users.

* Unpriced, off-street parking represents a cost estimated at about $250
billion annually in the U.S.

* Failing to implement congestion charges tends to favor space-intensive
modes (driving over ridesharing, transit, cycling and walking).

* The practice of treating roadway land as having zero value (i.e.,
collecting no rent or property taxes from road users) represents a market
distortion that favors space-intensive travel modes. Road user charges
would need to more than double if users paid such rents.

* Fixed vehicle insurance pricing practices tend to encourage automobile
use. Distance-based insurance is justified on actuarial grounds and would
reduce automobile use by 10% or greater.

* A number of planning practices tend to encourage automobile-oriented
transportation and land use patterns. These include dedicated funds and
matching grants for roads (particularly if they are not transferable to
other accounts) generous minimum road and parking requirements, utility
pricing that does not reflect the higher cost of dispersed development, and
filing to consider the full effects of generated traffic during
transportation planning and modeling.

* Some critics argue that market distortions favoring automobiles are
counterbalanced by subsidies to transit, but there are orders of magnitude
differences. Total U.S. transit subsidies are on the order of $20 billion,
and about half of these are justified on purely equity grounds (e.g.,
special mobility services for people with disabilities, wheelchair lifts,
transit service in lower-density areas). This is about the same amount that
is spent just on automobile advertising, and less than a tenth off the
amount devoted to parking subsidies.

This analysis suggests that the "optimal" transportation system that would
result from correcting market distortions would include personal automobile
travel, but it would be at a significantly lower level (1/3 to 1/2 less)
than what currently occurs. The result of such reforms would be that
consumers would choose to drive less, use alternatives more, place a higher
value on transportation-efficient land use, and be better off overall as a
result. I don't think it is fair to suggest that this represents an
"anti-driver" bias. It is simply basic market economics reflecting consumer
sovereignty. If this analysis is wrong, please let me know why.


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



At 07:55 AM 7/6/01 -0500, you wrote:
>A not altogether unreasonable definition. However, Todd Litman's last
>evaluation criteria indicates a bias against drivers. I would also have some
>concern about how to measure "quality," but objective measures should be
>possible. The criteria would be more appropriate as follows...

> * Quality of the transport environment, including all modes (this would
include pedestian and cycling, which could be listed along with cars, public
transport, etc.).

>Moreover the following criteria would be more effective if stated in terms
>of an index of some sort. Perhaps it would be be

> * Extent of transportation choices for non-drivers and lower-income
people.

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: Paul Barter <geobpa at nus.edu.sg>
To: <sustran-discuss at jca.apc.org>
Sent: Wednesday, 04 July, 2001 22:32
Subject: [sustran] re: How to assess local governments' transport policies


> Also taking the liberty of forwarding a useful response to yesterday's
query
> from Korea.
> Paul
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Todd Litman [mailto:litman at VTPI.ORG]
> Sent: Wednesday, 4 July 2001 10:41
> To: UTSG at JISCMAIL.AC.UK
> Subject: Re: How to assess local governments' transport policies
>
>
> It is very important when developing such evaluation criteria that they be
> based on the goal of access (the ability to obtain desired goods and
> services, and reach desired activities), rather than treat mobility and
> traffic as an end in itself. Many actions that improve vehicle mobility
> reduce access overall by reducing pedestrian and bicycle mobility, and by
> encouraging more dispersed land use patterns.
>
> For example, when siting a school or business, the best location from a
> mobility perspective is on a busy highway at the urban fringe, where it is
> convenient to reach by car and there is land for abundant parking. But
such
> a location reduces access, because it is difficult to reach by walking,
> cycling and public transit. Access is maximized by clustering major
> activity centers in a centralized area with good transit service.
>
> Evaluation criteria for access could include:
> * Average door-to-door travel time costs for residents in a region.
> * Average annual transportation expenditures for residents in a region.
> * Freight transportation delivery speeds.
> * Crashes and crash fatalities per capita.
> * Quality of transportation choices for non-drivers and lower-income
people.
> * Quality of the pedestian and cycling environments.
>
>
> For more discussion see the "Measuring Transport" chapter of the VTPI
> Online TDM Encyclopedia, available at 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