[sustran] Re: A bias against drivers?

[Wendell Cox]

My poiint is very simple. I was not claiming that investments in bicycling
or walking take away from the auto system. I was only stating that the very
nature of evaluation criteria is that they should be stated in objective
terms. The one in question is not. Restating it that way would change no
outcomes. Mine is a semantic argument.


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, 06 July, 2001 11:31
Subject: [sustran] A bias against drivers?


>
> 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