Our own Scott Bricker has an opinion piece in today’s Oregonian questioning the value of the incremental investment of $6B suggested by the Cost of Congestion study.
Our own Scott Bricker has an opinion piece in today’s Oregonian questioning the value of the incremental investment of $6B suggested by the Cost of Congestion study.
40 responses to “Who’d pay billions to buy 30 seconds?”
Scott in the O: Often, we’re clogging the roadways just to go down the street to the grocery store or library. The smart investment to help freight move would focus on programs that give people better choices than driving alone.
JK: Yes, it would be great to have a Wal-Mart, a Home Depot and a Frys within walking distance of everyone, but that is physically and economically impossible, despite what the smart growthers think, even if Metro succeeds in forcing Honk Kong style density down our throats.
Thanks
JK
Jim Karlock wrote: “Yes, it would be great to have a Wal-Mart, a Home Depot and a Frys within walking distance of everyone, but that is physically and economically impossible, despite what the smart growthers think,even if Metro succeeds in forcing Honk Kong style density down our throats.“
Wow, such an extremely large straw man you’ve constructed there!
No one is “forcing Honk Kong style density down our throats.”
1. There is plenty of low density, detached, single family housing going on in the Metro area, in fact it still represents the bulk of new housing.
2. Medium and higher density areas have been planned around regional centers and transit corridors.
3. The densities zoned are hardly a fraction of what’s in Hong Kong. Nobody is proposing that for Portland. At most, people are looking to Vancouver BC, but even the South Waterfront and the Pearl District don’t approach those modest densities.
Reality is closer to the opposite of what you describe. “Smart Growthers” are pushing for modest amounts of additional density where it can do the most good, rather than having a policy of “All detached single family homes and all singe-story office parks all the time” mentality.
Every person, couple, or family that moves into one of the denser housing alternatives takes pressure off the available detached housing supply.
– Bob R.
Scott Bricker from the Bicycle Transportation Alliance (BTA) raises some interesting points about transportation investment, particularly in light of the recent Cost of Congestion study (Who’d pay billions for buy 30 seconds? April 26). As a founder of the BTA, Metro Councilor from District 5, and Chair of the Joint Policy Advisory Committee on Transportation, I share Mr. Bricker’s interest in wise transportation investments, but I want to clarify a few things about the Cost of Congestion study, and about regional transportation investment.
The Cost of Congestion study does not call for $6 billion in new transportation investments. Rather, it uses that figure as one illustration to show the cost to the region’s economy ($844 million annually by 2025), that congestion will cause if we fail to act.
The study also shows how transportation-dependent our economy is, and documents many local businesses’ current strategies to cope with congestion and the costs they incur as a result.
Metro joined the Port of Portland and the Portland Business Alliance as partners in this study because we know that the growth in congestion, and the economic impacts it will have, are problems that we can’t just ignore.
Metro, in its role as convener of all the region’s transportation stakeholders, is beginning an update of the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), an exercise where we all decide on what transportation projects we want to buy, and in what order.
The “Six Billion Dollar Plan” to which Mr. Bricker refers is not a part of the Cost of Congestion study, rather an allusion to the roughly $6 billion of transportation projects that our current RTP has identified as critical to the region. But the catch is that we have no way to fund them. Federal funding is becoming a thing of the past, and new taxes are not acceptable to the public.
But this does not let us off the hook for finding ways to improve transportation and fight the crippling effects of congestion on our economy.
Just last week, we launched an update to the RTP. I am advocating that we do things differently this time. While the Cost of Congestion study illustrated that an extra $6 billion in ‘wish list’ projects would bring at least a 2-to1 return in economic activity, that’s only one way to get there, raise taxes, a lot, and that is unlikely to happen.
In the meantime, as representatives of the taxpayers, we owe it to them work even more diligently and creatively together to find ways to reduce congestion. A good starting point is a re-focused Regional Transportation Plan that establishes up front how much citizens are willing to pay and what they want from their investment. A plan that improves cooperation among public agencies and is integrated with other growth management strategies. A plan that encourages innovative approaches that keeps the economy moving and save us all time and money.
Scott Bricker from the Bicycle Transportation Alliance (BTA) raises some interesting points about transportation investment, particularly in light of the recent Cost of Congestion study (Who’d pay billions for buy 30 seconds? April 26). As a founder of the BTA, Metro Councilor from District 5, and Chair of the Joint Policy Advisory Committee on Transportation, I share Mr. Bricker’s interest in wise transportation investments, but I want to clarify a few things about the Cost of Congestion study, and about regional transportation investment.
The Cost of Congestion study does not call for $6 billion in new transportation investments. Rather, it uses that figure as one illustration to show the cost to the region’s economy ($844 million annually by 2025), that congestion will cause if we fail to act.
The study also shows how transportation-dependent our economy is, and documents many local businesses’ current strategies to cope with congestion and the costs they incur as a result.
Metro joined the Port of Portland and the Portland Business Alliance as partners in this study because we know that the growth in congestion, and the economic impacts it will have, are problems that we can’t just ignore.
Metro, in its role as convener of all the region’s transportation stakeholders, is beginning an update of the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), an exercise where we all decide on what transportation projects we want to buy, and in what order.
The “Six Billion Dollar Plan” to which Mr. Bricker refers is not a part of the Cost of Congestion study, rather an allusion to the roughly $6 billion of transportation projects that our current RTP has identified as critical to the region. But the catch is that we have no way to fund them. Federal funding is becoming a thing of the past, and new taxes are not acceptable to the public.
But this does not let us off the hook for finding ways to improve transportation and fight the crippling effects of congestion on our economy.
Just last week, we launched an update to the RTP. I am advocating that we do things differently this time. While the Cost of Congestion study illustrated that an extra $6 billion in ‘wish list’ projects would bring at least a 2-to1 return in economic activity, that’s only one way to get there, raise taxes, a lot, and that is unlikely to happen.
In the meantime, as representatives of the taxpayers, we owe it to them work even more diligently and creatively together to find ways to reduce congestion. A good starting point is a re-focused Regional Transportation Plan that establishes up front how much citizens are willing to pay and what they want from their investment. A plan that improves cooperation among public agencies and is integrated with other growth management strategies. A plan that encourages innovative approaches that keeps the economy moving and save us all time and money.
Rex, I’m looking forward to the RTP update process. But I think Scott has a point.
While I’m glad that the Cost of Congestion report is the basis for a much needed conversation between transportation planners and business, it seems to me there needs to be a much more specific focus. If congestion is screwing up our economy, shouldn’t we be looking for strategies that differentially help move freight faster, without at the same time enabling longer commutes and other kinds of trips that are the opposite of some of our regional goals?
If we just build more lane miles, 90% or so of the investment is going to SOVs…
Where do those strategies emerge in the upcoming process?
Building more lanes is something that is going to have to happen given the number of people that will move here in the future unless something catastrophic occurs. However at the same time there is no reason that the transportation marketplace cannot be opened to more providers so that people have an option other than trimet and a few cab companies. This area, from Salem north well past Vancouver and west to McMinnville needs to develop a new attitude toward transit. New types of vehicles are needed. We need vehicles that can turn around in a cul-de-sac and take a parent with a couple of kids in tow to the store on the weekend and we need express service buses that offer a high quality of service. A latte along with the WSJ each a.m. for your ride in from Salem.
Given the changes in demographics that are occuring with a population that is graying and that will be more transit dependent than in the past, but at the same time less likely to be able to afford more taxes requires that those who are given responsibility to make the decisions to look beyond the conventional answers that have satified a few in the past.
Openess is good thing and an open transit market may solve a number of problems and help to keep the cost down. So what will it take to move the politicians toward an open market?
M.W.
Or we could connect all those cul-de-sacs and create an actual local street grid in the burbs, reducing demand on the clogged arterials and freeways!
While the Cost of Congestion study illustrated that an extra $6 billion in ‘wish list’ projects would bring at least a 2-to1 return in economic activity
Even assuming you trusted that claim, which given the sponsors would be foolish, a 2-to-1 return is relatively low compared to other public investments. As I recall, the economic return on investments in early childhood education are estimated to be about 9 to 1. Of course Rex is head of JPACT, not the state school superintendent.
Nonetheless, the reality is that the economic benefits projected in the study can be achieved at lower cost than by investing $4-10 billion in transportation. The question that needs to be asked is which public investments will bring the greatest economic return. I doubt most transportation investments are even going to be in the running.
But the benefits of any investment will be uneven. Some people will benefit more than others. And this study was commissioned by people who think they will benefit from transportation investments.
In the meantime, as representatives of the taxpayers, we owe it to them work even more diligently and creatively together to find ways to reduce congestion.
There was a time when Rex recognized that reducing congestion was a fools errand. You are faced with the Yogi Berra condundrum when he famously said of a popular restaurant, “No one goes there any more, its too crowded.”
Any investment in trying to reduce congestion will just become an opportunity for people to drive more. For example, UPS will consolidate its operations in Clark County and Portland into one center and send half-empty delivery trucks across the river instead of full semis. And half their employees will have to commute across the river to get to work. The result will be new congestion, added air pollution and an increase in the private costs of transportation. But its possible UPS will benefit.
an open transit market may solve a number of problems and help to keep the cost down.
Or it may exacerbate problems and raise costs. I think the idea that there is some theoretical magic bullet is mistaken. There are reasons virtually every transit system in the United States is a publically operated monopoly. That doesn’t mean its impossible, but it requires more than libertarian theory about open markets being better.
rex Burkholder, April 27, 2006 05:29 PM . . . the roughly $6 billion of transportation projects that our current RTP has identified as critical to the region. But the catch is that we have no way to fund them.
JK:Ask the planning gurus at Metro how congestion would be affected if we quit building rail and spent the rail money on buses to the point where buses attract the same number of riders as rail (be sure to correct for the double counting that goes on with bus+rail), then put the rest on roads to be shared between cars, trucks and buses. (Rail costs too much and does too little)
rex Burkholder, April 27, 2006 05:29 PM . . . new taxes are not acceptable to the public.
JK: Try it the old fashioned way: Promise that, from now on, ALL TRANSPORTATION FUNDS extracted from road users will go to relieving congestion in the most cost effective manner possible. This means no money to remove driving lanes, build extended curbs, build boulevards or bloated sidewalks. Cease building rail and spend the money on roads to be shared between all users. If you guys promised that, I’ll bet Lars et al. would back a tax increase.
Ross Williams, April 27, 2006 09:04 PM: Any investment in trying to reduce congestion will just become an opportunity for people to drive more.
JK: Ross, in case you didn’t notice, our government was formed BY the people FOR the people, not for planners and various self appointed experts to dictate to the people. If people want to drive more, it is the government’s duty to try to accommodate it, not try to subvert it.
Chris Smith at April 27, 2006 08:36 PM Or we could connect all those cul-de-sacs and create an actual local street grid in the burbs, reducing demand on the clogged arterials and freeways!
JK: England’s experience with this is that the crime rate goes up dramatically when you open up cul-de-dacs. Additionally people do not like cut through traffic going by their house. This is quite an issue in Portland. Why not let people be free to choose where and how they live?
Thanks
JK
JK wrote: “If people want to drive more, it is the government’s duty to try to accommodate it…”
Where does it say that in the Constitution?
If people want to drive more, it is the government’s duty to try to accommodate it, not try to subvert it.
I don’t think most people want government to spend $6 billion so that they can drive an extra quarter mile to work or to the grocery store. That doesn’t mean that if government spends the $6 billion they won’t choose to drive more.
Additionally people do not like cut through traffic going by their house.
Jim, as a former neighborhood transportation chair, I agree that people in Portland and elsewhere don’t like cut-through traffic.
But let’s distinguish the two problems: cul-de-sacs mean that to make a very local trip, you have to get onto an arterial, which congests as a result. Cut through traffic occurs when drivers get off the arterial grid onto neighborhood streets to avoid congestion.
I’m pretty sure my neighbors in NW Portland would not want to close off the grid to prevent cut-through traffic if it meant they had to get onto an arterial to get to the grocery store.
And crime is a result of many socio-economic factors. Limiting connectivity might mitigate the symptoms, but connectivity is hardly the root cause of crime.
Rex wrote:
While the Cost of Congestion study illustrated that an extra $6 billion in ‘wish list’ projects would bring at least a 2-to1 return in economic activity…
While I attempted to find the economic assumptions behind the claims, I couldn’t find it in the study when I skimmed it, nor were there other documents available from calling Metro.
The study does mention that it used a low discount rate (5%) for future benefits instead of a moderate one (6%) or high one (7%). As the study itself says, the benefits are further out than the costs, thus the choice of a discount rate is critical. If you use both a moderate discount rate, and realize that roughly half the benefits are time-savings to households, which aren’t readily converted to cash, then the benefits fall below 1-to-1.
If you’re able to track down the background economic assumptions for this study, I’d be happy to review them further. But even a 2-to-1 return isn’t great compared to other things we could be doing.
Again, no one’s saying congestion’s not costly, nor that we should ignore it, but the proposed investment in the Cost of Congestion Study isn’t a good one.
Or we could let the people and thus the market speak. Let the roads, rail, and busses go to the market. Let people pay MARKET prices instead of subsidized ones. If something doesn’t fly, then it dies. I’d bet most car trips, especially SOV trips would decrease dramatically if the full $1.00 + cost instead of the subsidized .50-.60 cent cost was recouped DIRECTLY instead of thru tax manipulation. Imagine a daily commute at $1.00 a mile? That IS the cost of a car trip, the REAL cost of a car trip. Most likely it’s even more.
I gaurantee you’ll meet market demand, decrease excessive trips (sorry, kiddies can’t afford that extra trip to the mall to stair at each other now) and in turn you could drastically reduce the tax burden on society, reduce the polution in the air, create a more productive employment class (people would be paid by farebox fees ala previous to operational subsidies being created in the 50’s & 60’s.) instead of Unionized extraction of taxpayer dollars.
Oh wait, that’s the FAIR and economical thing to do that’s already been proven and accomplished in the past.
So never mind, don’t do that.
…and to the idea of adding lanes, and only using road money for lanes… it doesn’t work, you get less people moved than you would with ONE track and on top of that you gotta fix the roads every 5-10 years to maintain speed and safety, on top of that you are creating a zillion more pounds of polution and waste. (MAX is going on 20+ years on the east side and it is just now getting the tracks grinded… so that means we should have at least another 20 years out of the initial track laying!!)
JK wrote: “If people want to drive more, it is the government’s duty to try to accommodate it…”
Where does it say that in the Constitution?
…I’ve never seen anything that would lend me to think, or say that any level of Government besides a local city has the right, the duty, or even the hint of an obligation to do anything close to creating, building, constructing, maintaining, and operating a monopolistic transportation infrastructure. Matter of fact I’m very confident in the ideal that the Feds/State are supposed to regulate & allow commerce to be fair, etc., etc., etc… but to operate and run is a desecration of the original ideals of the Constitution, Governing Principles of the United States, and in the end a reduction in individual and personal liberties by the seizure of wealth and land thru tax & state/fed law.
Why does the need to enlarge Portland’s economy, our population, and our roadways beyond recognition always go unquestioned in these discussions? Why don’t we just let our existing transpotation infrastructure serve as a throttle on Portland’s out-of-control growth?
The Cost of Congestion report is disingenuous in that it describes a potential Profit — the money we could (maybe) bring to the local economy if we decided to drastically enlarge the city’s transporation infrastructure — as a loss, a Cost.
The underlying assumption of the report that I find maddening is that Portlanders want their city to keep growing larger and larger, that we want more and more people to move here, that rapid growth is synonymous with excellent health! (Ask the oncologists at OHSU about that one.) This report is really describing a strategy for enlarging our city. I think it’s time we recognize that one of Portland’s great strengths is its compact size.
We could all move to Seattle if we wanted to live in the high-transportation, high-population, high-anxiety economy that this report seems to think is our only hope for “competition” and survival. I call that bullshit. We do things different here.
It’s time for American economic practices to depend less on transportation and more on innovation. Portland should lead the nation on this. We can build all the damn freeways we want but the cost of transportation is headed nowhere but up. Congestion isn’t the problem of the future, the problem of the future is Fuel. Realistically, all Americans are going to be travelling less as it costs more to do so, and rising gasoline costs are going to solve our “congestion costs” for free. The winning economies are going to be the ones least dependent on long-distance transportation.
Harumph.
The winning economies are going to be the ones least dependent on long-distance transportation.
Which is exactly the point I tried to make in this morning’s post on ‘resilience’.
BTW – one of the economists yesterday stated the obvious: “the wild card is in-migration.”
adron , 4/ 28, 2006 09:36 AM Or we could let the people and thus the market speak. Let the roads, rail, and busses go to the market. Let people pay MARKET prices instead of subsidized ones.
JK: Well here we agree, but will you still advocate this after you learn the facts?
1. Road users pay almost all (ie: 90+%) of road costs. Federal, state and local (this will vary depending on the city/state) It IS THE CASE in Portland and Oregon that users pay for just about everything except the street lights. Unfortunately some multi-national environmental advocacy groups have been spreading the story that road users do not pay their fair share.
2. Tri-Met riders pay under 20% of the actual cost. Take fares and multiply by five to get the real cost. So that one-zone ticket will go from $1.65 to over $8.25 and the all zone from $1.95 to over $9.75. Makes driving a car look cheap!! (As an aside, transit usage would have to increase by five times, with no increase in costs, to break even.)
3. Light rail is the worst offender: its actual cost is about the same as taxi fare.
Oh, BTW, transit vehicles use fuel too, and in about the same amount, per passenger mile, as new cars. Buses a bit worse, rail a bit better. Pollution generally is proportional to fuel usage.
adron , 4/ 28, 2006 09:36 AM …and to the idea of adding lanes, and only using road money for lanes… it doesn’t work, you get less people moved than you would with ONE track
JK: Actually, TriMet claims that MAX, paralleling I84 & US26, carries about the same number of people as one and one-half lanes of freeway (if I recall). Here is the trick:
1. Apples to oranges – comparing mass transit to SOV. If you make the comparison with mass transit on one lane vs mass transit on one track, you get around one bus per minute on that one lane of low cost asphalt carrying the same number of people as one very expensive track. The rest of the time that lane of asphalt can carry a whole bunch of cars and trucks. The highest number of passengers past a point on one track or lane is in fact a bus lane in NYC. Rail loses. Costs too much, does too little.
2. Around 2/3 of the people riding rail were previously on the bus, so only 1/3 of that 1 ½ lanes of people were taken out of cars. 1/3 of 1 ½ is only ½ of one lane. Cynics claim that some people who were transit users quit using transit when rail came in because the trip got slower or their local bus stop was replaced with a transit station too far away. Additional people quit using transit when they had to transfer multiple times. There are even very cynical people that claim NO net increase in transit riders due to the introduction of rail because of the above effects.
Thanks
JK
JK – can we really be comparing 1985 Portland traffic commuting vs today? It HAS been 21 years.
Freeway traffic, street traffic, bus traffic, etc – has all grown – in many ways. There are more cars on the road, peak-hour is FAR worse than it was even 3 years ago, and there are many more busses and trains than ever.
How many people have moved to Portland, and how many more cars exist now than in 1985?
Justin: JK – can we really be comparing 1985 Portland traffic commuting vs today? It HAS been 21 years.
JK: Who said anything about 1985?
Thanks
JK
JK claims:
1. Road users pay almost all (ie: 90+%) of road costs.
2. Tri-Met riders pay under 20% of the actual cost.
3. Light rail is the worst offender: its actual cost is about the same as taxi fare.
Where do you get these numbers, and how do you know they’re accurate?
-m-
mykle, May 2, 2006 05:09 AM
JK claims:
1. Road users pay almost all (ie: 90+%) of road costs.
JK: Federal reports, conversations with local finance people. BTW around 20% of gas tax money goes to mass transit.
mykle, May 2, 2006 05:09 AM2. Tri-Met riders pay under 20% of the actual cost.
JK: http://www.co.multnomah.or.us/orgs/tscc/financialinfo.html Click on Annual report then goto the TriMEt section. There is a nice little pie chart that shows the breakdown – transit riders are really sucking off the taxpayer. This report lists all of the entities that get tax money on Multnomah county – lots of fun reading.
mykle, May 2, 2006 05:09 AM3. Light rail is the worst offender: its actual cost is about the same as taxi fare.
JK: Data is from trimet. Add their stated operating costs to the construction cost, amortized over 30 years at 5-7% and this the result.
Try this one:
Get Timets annnual taxpayer subsidy from the above report and divide that by the number of daily riders – might be on the trimet web site I got it by request. (don’t be fooled by boardings which is each time a person boards a vehicle – you board twice on a round trip on a bus, or four times if you go bus to rail to destination then rail to bus home). I got a monthly amount that would make car payments for every daily rider. If you didn’t buy cars for those that have cars, you would probably be able to pay for gas and insurance too.
Another fun thing is to get the annual bus passenger miles and fuel consumption then do the division to get passenger-miles per gallon and compare that to a modern car. Be sure to compensate for the differing energy content of diesel and gasolene.
Do the same for rail and you get a bit better fuel economy, but electric power in this region is primarily from coal, then hydro, then nuke, then minor stuff like wind. Trimet pays extra for their power so that they can claim it is from the wind, but where does it come from when there is no wind?
Thanks
jk
Jim needs his own blog to take on TriMet, lightrail, etc….now back to the subject of this string, Cost of Congestion.
My initial reaction to this study is elswhere on this site from some months ago. But a couple of more thoughts.
The Port of Portland seems to looking in the rearview mirror when they think they are looking to the future. Being a significant freshwater port on two big rivers, rail lines, Interstates, etc. helped get the “Port” in Portland. But today, except for wheat, autos and bulk minerals, the Port of Portland is not a player. The number of containers moving in and out of Portland is insignificant. So it is a reasonable question to raise to what degree our economic future rests on moving goods. If we focus on traded sector businesses cited in the study, only Intel is impacted, and their recent loss of market share has more to do with product and price than with getting shipments from Hillsboro to PDX. The other businesses noted in the study…PGE, Provience, package delivery operations are going to be in this market regardless and will adjust to the situation on the ground.
Education, workforce issues are much more critical to economic growth, particularly in the traded sector, than transportation. Even Jay Waldon, president of the Port Commission, agreed with this when I asked him at the Logistics Breakfast a few months ago, on which he would spend an extra $Billion if it show up unexpectedly. He winched and said “Education.”
Lenny Anderson Jim needs his own blog to take on TriMet, lightrail,
JK : I am just pointing out that TriMet cannot/is not do(ing) the job that some hope it can.
It is better to learn this fact before we spend another few billion on failed experiments.
To be truly pro-transit one should recognize that buses deliver far more results for a given amount of money compared to rail. Some cities are having to cut tranist service overall to support the expense of light rail.
Thanks
JK
Still waiting for some backup on those numbers … thanks.
-m-
mykle: Still waiting for some backup on those numbers … thanks.
JK : I posted that early this AM and got a message that posts from new people must be approved, so rather than try again, I am waiting.
In the meantime you can check out:
http://www.saveportland.com/Car_Vs_Tri-Met/TriMet_vs_Car5.htm
It is a little bit flippant, but the data is there in the link at the bottom of the page.
Thanks
JK
Some cities are having to cut tranist service overall to support the expense of light rail.
Portland has not been one of them.
To JK: As I have shown you before in other threads, buses do not necessarily work out to be cheaper for equivalent levels of service.
It will be interesting to review numbers from Eugene in the coming years, as they have opened a partial busway.
From what I understand, the buses they are using feature both left-side and right-side boarding doors.
It occurs to me that if the Portland Transit Mall becomes too crowded (as some have predicted) by mixing rail and bus in the two right lanes with the “weave” design, additional capacity could be instantly utilized by converting the left side auto lane for use as a 3rd transit lane with buses that pick up on the left.
– Bob R.
OK, back to Cost of Congestion…
Even if we grant the authors their vision of Portland as “Warehouse City” with lots of good jobs for forklift drivers, etc., a couple of interesting things just jump out.
Neither Going Street nor Columbia Blvd are now or are projected to be congested. These are the two busiest freight arterials serving the heart of the freight/industrial complexes of N/NE Portland.
The study does show that Hwy 43 through Dunethorpe is a congested…but a freight route?
Data from I-5 as well as other sources show that freight makes up on average about 10% of the vehicles on congested roadways; congestion is due to lots of SOV trips, some essential, others not. Many of these drivers would love to be in another mode, if one existed…i.e. MAX across the Columbia.
On Swan Island better than 1 in 5 employees do NOT commute alone in their cars. Expanded transit, bike access and rideshare programs have given those folks options, and they are using them. Freight moves freely and will do so for the forseeable future.
A followup to my above comment on BRT costs vs. rail…
The Eugene BRT project (dubbed “EmX”) will have 5 special 60′ buses from New Flyer at a cost of over $1 million each. (ref: http://www.ltd.org/pdf/07%20-%20Capital%20Projects%20Fund%2005.pdf )
These buses feature left-side and right-side boarding, low floors, and multiple doors, similar to a LRV.
The cost, however, begins to approach that of an LRV. One bus carries about 2/3 the capacity of a single-car MAX LRV at 1/3 the cost. But, will the bus last as long as an LRV? Typically, buses last only 1/3 as long. If this holds true for these special buses, then over the life of the LRV, 3 buses would have to be purchased, bringing the capital costs exactly even (at $3mil each) while only providing 2/3 of the capacity.
Just another data point in the debate about whether or not bus is actually cheaper than rail for equivalent levels of service.
– Bob R.
I apologize if this is veering off-topic again and hate to be negative, but road users do not pay for 90% of their costs. We are putting 1 Billion into a sewer system project to treat runoff, yet our streets are the biggest generators of stormwater and road users are paying for none of it. Moreover, Milwaukie is considering a fee to fix roads that will not come from drivers and Washington County already has a property tax-funded Major Streets Transportation Improvement Program. Than there’s the 99% of parking that’s “free”…
As for the bus vs. rail debate, keep in mind that more people are willing to ride rail than a bus and that in many places, like along the Banfield, the Airport extension and just about the entire Westside, band-new capacity was added. To have equivilant bus service, new lanes and roadways (busways) would need to be built.
Lastly, I find it interesting that the bus-vs-car page shows one of TriMet’s oldest buses…one which is generally no longer in service. It also appears to leave out the subsidies listed above. Oh, and a decent amount of transit subsidy probably goes to areas which are car-oriented are transit is provided mainly to help the needy, not because it necessarly make economic sense.
JK says:
http://www.saveportland.com/Car_Vs_Tri-Met/TriMet_vs_Car5.htm
That’s an interesting experiment in cost comparison. (I hope this is still germane to the thread … it’s all about ways to account for transit costs, after all.)
I’ve got no idea how Tri-Met measures their costs, but I’m really curious how you calculated the $114/month cost of car ownership. My car seems to cost more than that. =)
Did you figure in the cost of tires? Oil changes, and other non-warranty maintenance? Insurance? Cost of storage as a percentage of rent/mortgage? Cleaning & wax? Registration? Tickets? Parking? And how much did this car cost, anyway?
Still, I agree that car traffic made up entirely of fuel-efficent small cars, carrying 1.2 people on average, would be a noble improvement over the car traffic we actually have in my neighborhood.
Looking forward to less flippant numbers. =)
-m-
JK – Since when can you buy and maintain a car for $114 a month? Gas? Maintenance? Insurance?
They should also do a comparison between a Trimet bus and a Cadillac Escalade, since most people drive SUVs, not Hondas. According to wiki, the escalade gets ~14 mpg, not 29. At $3 a gallon, thats a lot of moola… and costs a lot more than $114/month. More like $300 a month.
They also seem to have left out the numbers for insurance – these can range anywhere from a few hundred per 6 months, to several hundred per month, depending on the age of the driver, experience, and how new the car is. The newer the car (and thus fewer problems, less maintenance and lower interest rates), you have to pay FAR more for insurance than for an older car. Often times balances out.
I can’t believe they left those numbers out of this comparison – it basically renders it useless!
The arguments about who pays are basically non-starters. We all pay for roads and we all pay for transit and we all use both as well. These are public systems that serve all of us. Connecting the costs to individual useage is just not possible. The variations in costs for specific trips is wider than any variation between one use and another.
Its just pretense that you can lump “road users” together and come up with how much “they” pay as opposed to the rest of us. We are all road users and the costs directly related to our personal use (gas, insurance, auto) are only a small component of the overall system’s cost. Likewise farebox and employer payroll taxes for transit are only roughly related to the cost of the service the people paying them receive. These are public services and no more relate to the marketplace than a library relates to a bookstore.
AAA estimates the average cost of driving is 52.2 cents per mile, which equals $7,834 per year based on 15,000 miles of driving, and this is at $2.40 / gallon. http://www.aaanewsroom.net/main/Default.asp?CategoryID=4&ArticleID=437
Wow! This does not include other costs such as general funds going towards roads and other issues related to the time of driving (such as is included in the $6 billion plan), environmental costs, land use costs, etc.
Another reason to love biking, my travel costs have not increased one dime… in fact my fiancé and I took one of our two cars off insurance to save money.
“AAA estimates the average cost of driving is 52.2 cents per mile, which equals $7,834 per year based on 15,000 miles of driving, and this is at $2.40 / gallon”
Here is a breakdown assembled from the link. Note that depreciation on a new car is over twice the cost of gas. Lesson: buy used, buy small!!
cents/mile Total
fuel costs_________9.5 x15K = $1,425
tires______________0.7 x15k = _ $105
licensing/reg/tax__3.6__________$535
depreciate________22.6________$3,392
Service____________3.7_________ $552
Finance charges____4.8_________ $716
Insurance__________6.2_________ $926
TOTAL_____________51.0________$7,651 ($183 different than AAA total)
Also see: http://www.aaapublicaffairs.com/Assets/Files/2006328123200.YourDrivingCosts2006.pdf
Thanks
JK
Jim-
good point on the depreciation of the value on a new car! Not sure of the exact %, but once you drive a car off the lot… you’re already taking a hit on that first 1/4 mile.
One of the reasons I’ve only ever bought used cars from private dealers – really helps reduce how much you’ll lose, as long as the vehicle has been well maintained.
Of course, limiting auto useage keeps its resale value up a bit, too, by limiting the # of miles you put on it. One great reason to seek alt transport…
Sorry for keeping this thread alive, there’s just something about estimating costs that sets me all a-flutter. =)
Anyway, JK said:
“Note that depreciation on a new car is over twice the cost of gas. Lesson: buy used, buy small!!”
Duly noted … but maintenance costs are higher on a used car, mileage is poorer, and emissions are worse.
At any rate, even assuming the availability of a huge pool of ultra-affordable slightly-used small sedans for us to replace Portland’s buses with, the AAA estimates imply they’d cost more, not less, to operate.
In fact, if the Small Car Fairy left us brand new small cars under each of our pillows when we turned 18, we’d still need to spend $3239 for yearly operating costs (at the AAA estimate of 15,000 miles per year) which would be $269/month … more than twice the cost of Tri-Met as JK has estimated it. And of course the actual rider doesn’t even pay that much …
I have not really pounded through these numbers, however the cost of light rail includes Right of way and track construction. The cost of operating a car does not include all aspects roadway costs, especially as deferred maintaince costs paint large red ink marks all over operating budgets.
Per costs of vehicles, my finance and I have two cars and only run and insure one. The operating costs of a unsed sedan are less expensive… but not cheap. However, the average is the average and many many people are dumping big dollars into cars.
Someone calculate the cost of having my view of Mt Hood obscured by a think layer of unbreathable
air…hack, hack, hack.