Front-loading the Re-authorization


The president’s Labor Day stumping included pushing for ‘front-loading’ the transportation re-authorization with $50B in up-front funding.

T4America is rushing to support the idea, but I’d be happy if the rhetoric were a little less road-centric. Yes, transit and HSR are called out, but the lead is still roads, roads, roads. Any I saw nary a mention of bikes anywhere. The least money, and potentially most transformative, and nowhere to be found… Sigh.


28 responses to “Front-loading the Re-authorization”

  1. Over the past 25 years, the federal government has spent more than $100 billion on transit. The reward has been a reduction of at least one-third in transit’s share of urban travel. In only one of the many urban areas in which the federal government has funded expensive new rail systems has the share of travel by transit risen more than one percentage point.

    More at…. http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/245798/infrastructure-time-dump-ideology-wendell-cox

  2. Over the past 25 years, the federal government has spent more than $100 billion on transit.

    Is that all? That’s puny.

    That’s less than 5 cents per person per day.

    Compare to automobile-related spending in the same time-frame.

    Compare to contemporary overseas wars.

    (Yes, I’m committing a sin of averaging which includes people not directly served by the dollars in question. Wendell does that sort of thing repeatedly. Fair game.)

  3. The best transit advocates can hope for is that the funds directed to road maintenance indeed goes to those roadways in dire need of major repairs rather than widenings and added lanes.

  4. Bob R: (Quoting Steve) Over the past 25 years, the federal government has spent more than $100 billion on transit.

    Is that all? That’s puny.
    JK: All Federal auto related spending comes from users. And they even pay more than their own way. Unlike transit which is mainly paid for by non users- including taking money from auto users’ taxes. See the excerpts from the Federal Report and links to it: http://www.portlandfacts.com/roadsubsidy.htm

    This may interest some HSR fans: High-Speed Rail Deathwatch: http://ti.org/antiplanner/?p=3694

    Have you considered the best way to improve mobility for the truly needy among us?
    Or the best way to lower transportation energy use?
    Or the best way to lower transportation cost?
    Or the best way to reduce commute times?

    Thanks
    JK

  5. All Federal auto related spending comes from users.

    Nope. (PDF, Page 21)

    To cover the shortfall, from fiscal years 2008 through 2010 Congress transferred a total of $34.5 billion in additional general revenues into the Highway Trust Fund, including $29.7 billion into the Highway Account. This means that, to a large extent, funding has shifted away from the contributions of highway users, breaking the link between highway taxes paid and benefits received by users. Furthermore, the infusion of a significant amount of general fund revenues complicates rate-of-return analysis because the current method of calculating contributions does not account for states’ general revenue contributions. For many states, the share of Highway Trust Fund contributions and general revenue contributions are different, therefore state-based contributions to all the funding in the Trust Fund are no longer clear.14 In addition, since March 2009, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 apportioned an additional $26.7 billion to the states for highways—a significant augmentation of federal highway spending that was funded with general revenues.

    And related to that topic, here’s an oldie but a goodie:

    Although “user fees” in the form of gas taxes, registration fees, and tolls pay for a portion of the infrastructure services, large government outlays remain that must be covered by general revenues. Delucchi and Murphy (1995) estimated the net government expenditures at the federal, state, and local levels to be from $25 billion to $45 billion in 1991

    Those, and related automobile subsidies, appear to outspend transit (and not from “user fees”) at the federal level by well over 10:1. Possibly over 20:1 but I don’t have time right now to come up with a list of everything.

  6. Bob: To cover the shortfall, from fiscal years 2008 through 2010 Congress transferred a total of $34.5 billion in additional general revenues into the Highway Trust Fund, including $29.7 billion into the Highway Account
    JK: Of course they take 15% off the top or the gas tax for transit which would be about 0.15 x 197 billion = $30 billion.

    Looks like they were basically replacing the money stolen for transit.

    Of course in 2000, Delucchi put the total subsidy to cars at about 7c/passenger-mile compared to 40c/passenger-mile for bus and probably more for rail. see: http://www.portlandfacts.com/delucchi_chart.htm

    Speaking of bus vs. rail, have you looked at what happens to the cost of light rail when you add in the amortized local match dollars (about $830 million in Sept 2009 dollars)?

    Answer: 66 million dollars spread over 186.541 million passenger-miles* gives a cost of $0.35 per mile. Add this to Trimet’s official cost and you almost double Trimet’s stated operating cost!

    * See http://www.portlandfacts.com/top10bus.html for data source.

    Thanks
    JK

  7. Looks like they were basically replacing the money stolen for transit.

    Here we go again with hyperbole. No money was “stolen”. If so, take ’em to court.

    Looks like they were basically replacing the money stolen for transit.

    Then your original argument is still bogus. If the “stolen” money has been replaced, then it is not true that motorist user-fees are currently funding transit.

  8. As well as oil defense, pollution clean-up, development policies and all the other things that support driving.
    JK:All those also apply to transit. And more so, since buses use MORE oil than small cars per passenger-mile. (If you support less oil use, you should support small cars instead of transit)

    Thanks
    JK

    [Moderator: Incorrect closing bold tag corrected so that JK’s text doesn’t look like shouting. – Bob R.]

  9. All those also apply to transit. And more so, since buses use MORE oil than small cars per passenger-mile.

    Sorry, no. You’ve never shown that transit trips only replace the equivalent of trips that would otherwise be made by small cars, and you’ve never stopped conflating rural miles with urban miles.

    Until you do those two things, you can’t prove that statement.

    Advocating for a hypothetical (and not very thoroughly described) future policy position doesn’t change current facts.

  10. User fees and highways:

    http://subsidyscope.com/transportation/highways/funding/

    User fees cover 65% of direct costs of highways, according to Pew.

    No externalities in such an analysis.

    I’ve pimped this link quite a few times, sorry for the repeat ad naseum, but this topic gets talked about way too frequently for me not to post it again.

    You won’t hear anything about addressing how our transportation system is broken from Obama, Wendell Cox, or any average joe person for that matter.

    And yes, transit is overwhelmingly subsidized too. I don’t disagree that a lot of it can be gold platted, just like our highways.

  11. Bob R. Says: Until you do those two things, you can’t prove that statement.
    JK: Of course, it is your side (transit advocates) who claimed (and still do) that transit saves energy. So, actually the burden of proof is on your side.

    Please prove the case that transit saves energy compared to getting people to switch to smaller cars.

    Thanks
    JK

  12. “So, actually the burden of proof is on your side. Please prove the case that transit saves energy compared to getting people to switch to smaller cars.”

    Enough with the straw-man argument, JK. “Transit Advocates” (as a whole, your characterization) have not made the claim that transit uses less energy than your hypothetical grouping of “small cars”. The claim has been against automobiles in urban travel as a whole, and that is true and well documented.

    You’re the one making the hypothetical about “small cars”, and yet you’ve provided no workable plan, and in fact no data whatsoever to suggest that if we abandon public transit, people will therefore migrate to “small cars” and that, in an urban setting, those “small cars” will in fact save energy.

    Genuine criticism, please. Public transit, like any major part of life, should be scrutinized and held accountable. That starts with making real claims about real-world scenarios.

  13. Bob R: The claim has been against automobiles in urban travel as a whole, and that is true and well documented.
    JK: Please show us this documentation. Credible sources only please. Federal Transportation data preferred.

    Thanks
    JK

  14. We’ve been over this many times before, JK. Even your own frequently-cited sources are favorable (slightly) to transit.

    Take the latest Edition 29 of the Transportation Energy Data Book, Table 2.12
    “Passenger Travel and Energy Use, 2008″… (Page 14 of the linked PDF)

    Even though this table does not separate out urban travel from rural travel, it is still favorable to transit. The table appears to assume an average vehicle occupancy of about 1.6 for cars and 1.8 for personal trucks, most likely a problem again with conflating rural travel patterns with urban ones. (Transit is not much of a rural phenomenon, so it is inappropriate to compare it with rural automobile statistics.)

    Fortunately, we know from actual ODOT statistics gathered directly from accident reports in our urban and suburban counties that the occupancy number is closer to 1.3, based on a range of 1.27 to 1.33. Just like I showed you in January of 2007 (scroll down to January 26 9:34 AM).

    Applied to the Transportation Energy Databook table (despite the flawed urban/rural conflation), that brings “Cars” to about 4200 btu/passenger mile, and “Personal Trucks” to about 5150 btu/passenger mile.

    Meanwhile the data book figures for transit bus (4348 per passenger-mile) and transit rail (2521 btu per passenger-mile) are pretty good by comparison.

    Once you work out just about any reasonable average for the modal split (“cars” and “personal trucks” (ie, truck-based SUVs), bus and rail), transit wins.

    And local numbers (some of which you’ve posted in the past) show that TriMet does even better than the national averages for energy-efficiency.

    Which just goes to show that our region might be doing something right when it comes to transportation planning, compared to the national average.

    No reason to abandon transit for hypothetical adoption of “small cars”.

    Credible sources only please.

    That’s a bit confusing. Earlier, you cited O’Toole, and he’s just been caught (again?) incorrectly critiquing a book he hasn’t even read. Not very credible. Over a year ago when we were having a similar debate over the very same numbers you cited Fox News. Calling Fox “credibility-challenged” would be a compliment.

  15. If you exclude social service transit (i.e. the mostly-empty busses sent out hourly to remote suburbs just in case some poor schmoe stuck there but who can’t drive needs a lift), transit blows away autos for energy efficiency. The only reason that its close is that many transit agencies choose to (or are in some cases REQUIRED to) operate lines for social benefit.

    Even a modestly full bus or train is excellent for energy efficiency.

    But this, too, has been discussed before–and it simply gets ignored by folks for whom it is inconvenient.

  16. EngineerScotty Says: If you exclude social service transit (i.e. the mostly-empty busses sent out hourly to remote suburbs just in case some poor schmoe stuck there but who can’t drive needs a lift), transit blows away autos for energy efficiency. The only reason that its close is that many transit agencies choose to (or are in some cases REQUIRED to) operate lines for social benefit.
    JK: Sorry, the national data makes that distinction. I use the regular transit service data.

    EngineerScotty Says: Even a modestly full bus or train is excellent for energy efficiency.
    JK: How about the average of the ten largest bus agencies in the country? Their average bus load is 13.55 people per vehicle with an average energy consumption of 3876 BTU/passenger-mile. A car with 1.3 people in it matches this at 24.6 mpg. A car at the national average of 1.6 people matches this at 20.4 mpg. The national average is 22.9 mpg for actual cars on the road. There is dispute as to which figure to use for urban vehicle loading – 1.3 is a number that Bob suggested, but the reality appears to be that 1.6 is the correct number for urban vehicles as described here: http://ti.org/antiplanner/?p=2617

    EngineerScotty Says: But this, too, has been discussed before–and it simply gets ignored by folks for whom it is inconvenient.
    JK: Yep. Inconvenient that nationally, transit does not beat the average car.

    Remember we are basically discussing what public policies should be perused when we have this type of discussion. The choice that is usually presented is transit vs. today’s mix of vehicles. But the real choice, in terms of public policy is do we try to get people to give up the convenience and speed of a car for transit or convince people to get more energy efficient cars?

    And more efficient cars are already mandated by the Feds. The 39 mpg BHO mandate (about 2000 BTU/passenger-mile) will put cars far above transit (less than even the best LRT line in the country), so the logical thing to do is quit promoting transit to save energy and look for the best way to serve low income, transit dependent people.

    (All this presumes that energy saving is a valid goal. And guiding people’s choices is a valid role of government – both questionable premises in a free society.)

    Thanks
    JK

  17. Bob R. Says:

    Bob R. Says: Fortunately, we know from actual ODOT statistics gathered directly from accident reports in our urban and suburban counties that the occupancy number is closer to 1.3, based on a range of 1.27 to 1.33. Just like I showed you in January of 2007 (scroll down to January 26 9:34 AM).
    JK: And even more fortunately O’Toole asked the question. Here is his bottom line:
    So I emailed Patricia Hu, who co-authored the above-mentioned NHTS report that found an average of 1.6. Does that 1.6 apply to all travel, or just urban travel? I asked.

    Literally within seconds of clicking “send,” my phone rang and Ms. Hu was on the other end of the line. She reported that “at least 95 percent” of the travel reported on in the NHTS was urban travel; the Department of Transportation has another survey that applies to intercity travel. This meant, she assured me, that I could use 1.6 for urban travel. (bold added)
    see: http://ti.org/antiplanner/?p=2617

    This means that if O’Toole is accurately reporting (which I assume you will verify ASAP) the correct number is indeed 1.6 and you argument is “inoperative”.

    Don’t forget that this thread is about NATIONAL funding and thus we need to use national, not local data.

    Thanks
    JK

  18. Sorry, the national data makes that distinction. I use the regular transit service data.

    No, JK, the national data does not make that distinction. Scotty is referring to fixed-route transit. A already linked to the table. Show me where “social service” transit (the subset of fixed-route transit service which serves distant, low-ridership areas) is on the table.

    You may be thinking of “demand-response”, which is listed on the table. That’s like TriMet’s “LIFT” service, which is a completely different thing than fixed-route transit.

    This means that if O’Toole is accurately reporting (which I assume you will verify ASAP) the correct number is indeed 1.6 and you argument is “inoperative”.

    Show me in the data (you know, from a credible source) where it breaks this down. I’d prefer something in writing from an actual report rather than O’Toole’s characterization of a phone call, especially since it completely contradicts local empirical data.

    I’d especially like to see the table where it shows that “at least 95%” of all automobile travel is urban travel.

    Don’t forget that this thread is about NATIONAL funding and thus we need to use national, not local data.

    It’s also about what Portland tends to do with that national funding, and the fact that it seems to be doing better than the national average, which means other regions may be looking closely at our policies.

  19. How about the average of the ten largest bus agencies in the country? Their average bus load is 13.55 people per vehicle with an average energy consumption of 3876 BTU/passenger-mile.

    Once again you’ve moved the goalposts. Your original claim was about the energy usage of “transit”, not just “bus transit”. How many of those ten cities have significant rail transit components? You can’t just omit rail, which is far more energy-efficient than buses, when referring to those cities. You’ve got to use the whole mix to make a claim about “transit”.

    The national average is 22.9 mpg for actual cars on the road.

    Do these “actual cars” include light trucks and SUVs, from the separate line item “personal trucks”? If not, you’re skewing the results.

    There is dispute as to which figure to use for urban vehicle loading – 1.3 is a number that Bob suggested

    It’s a number that ODOT actually measures and reports. If you have a problem with ODOT’s methodology, please take it up with them and get back to us.

    And, yet again as a semi-annual reminder, the Transportation Energy Data Book says this:

    Great care should be taken when comparing modal energy intensity data among modes. Because of the inherent differences among the transportation modes in the nature of services, routes available, and many additional factors, it is not possible to obtain truly comparable national energy intensities among modes. These values are averages, and there is a great deal of variability even within a mode.

  20. Regarding social service transit–even routes which are routinely full during weekdays, are generally empty at night–it’s useful to speak of “social service hours” as well, when a decision is made to provide a service that is under-utilized.

    But eliminating (or reducing) the inefficiencies in social service transit is an important reason why effective land-use planning is essential.

  21. EngineerScotty Says: But eliminating (or reducing) the inefficiencies in social service transit is an important reason why effective land-use planning is essential.
    JK: Doesn’t work very well in the nation’s densist urban area, Los Angeles, which gets 3649 btu/passenger-mile or New York which gets 3222. Even though their bus loads average 17 people. Compare these to the recent federally mandated fleet average of 2000 btu passenger mile (at the national average of 1.6 passengers.)

    PS: Do you really believe a little energy saving justifies depriving people the choice to live in low density, or to make living in low density more costly? Or do you merely think we should heard people into higher density by using tax money to subsidize their lifestyle?

    Thanks
    JK

  22. Bob R. Says: No, JK, the national data does not make that distinction. Scotty is referring to fixed-route transit. A already linked to the table. Show me where “social service” transit (the subset of fixed-route transit service which serves distant, low-ridership areas) is on the table.
    JK: Sorry I missed this trerm.

    Bob R. Says: and the fact that it seems to be doing better than the national average, which means other regions may be looking closely at our policies.
    JK: History is full of transit agencies providing wrong numbers. In any case when the WES and green slime lines make their way into the data, trimet won’t look as good. And one must ask at what price? – as Trimet seems to have been leaving some big dollars, like retirement liabilities, off of their books. Isn’t that close to a billion dollars?

    Bob R. Says: Once again you’ve moved the goalposts. Your original claim was about the energy usage of “transit”, not just “bus transit”. How many of those ten cities have significant rail transit components? You can’t just omit rail, which is far more energy-efficient than buses, when referring to those cities. You’ve got to use the whole mix to make a claim about “transit”.
    JK: You really need to study PortlandFacts.com – it is full of accurate data. For instance on the page that I referenced for bus data you will also find data on the agencies that operate both bus and rail: they average 4,027 btu per passenger mile That is double the new BHO federal mandate for cars.

    Once agin, if the goal is really to save energy, persuade people to use efficient cars, not transit. They are cheaper, more convenient and faster.

    Bob R. Says: The national average is 22.9 mpg for actual cars on the road.

    Do these “actual cars” include light trucks and SUVs, from the separate line item “personal trucks”? If not, you’re skewing the results.
    JK: I don’t recall, but it is not relevant – if the goal is really to save energy, persuade people to use efficient cars, not transit. They are cheaper, more convenient and faster.

    Bob R. Says: And, yet again as a semi-annual reminder, the Transportation Energy Data Book says this:

    Great care should be taken when comparing modal energy intensity data among modes. Because of the inherent differences among the transportation modes in the nature of services, routes available, and many additional factors, it is not possible to obtain truly comparable national energy intensities among modes. These values are averages, and there is a great deal of variability even within a mode.
    JK: Oh, you mean like when a trip on transit is longer because you waste time going far out of your way to get to a decimation, instead of taking a direct route. Then transit gets credited with more passenger-miles than needed for a given purpose – another waste inherent in transit.

    Thanks
    JK

  23. persuade people to use efficient cars, not transit

    The only problem with that idea is that it usually isn’t an “either/or” proposition. Specifically, if people do switch to personal cars it doesn’t cause the bus to not run. It’s either bus or bus+cars, which nullifies any efficiencies of switching to cars.

    And where there’s good transit, its generally direct, following the same thoroughfares that a car driver would.

  24. I don’t recall, but it is not relevant

    It’s very relevant. If you’re omitting light trucks, you’re completely blowing away your generalization about “cars” and _current” energy usage compared to transit. This has already been explained and yet you continue to restate your hypothetical. Hypotheticals have nothing to do with claims about _current_ energy usage.

    Doesn’t work very well in the nation’s densist urban area, Los Angeles, which gets 3649 btu/passenger-mile or New York which gets 3222.

    Again you’re leaving out rail transit. Your original claim was about “transit” in general. Cherry-picking just bus values, and then cherry picking only cars and not light trucks, proves nothing.

    Or do you merely think we should heard people into higher density by using tax money to subsidize their lifestyle?

    Can you at least keep your metaphors straight for a single sentence? First they’re poor victims being “hereded”, then they’re freeloaders enjoying a “lifestyle”. Sheesh.

    Once agin, if the goal is really to save energy, persuade people to use efficient cars, not transit. They are cheaper, more convenient and faster. [and then] if the goal is really to save energy, persuade people to use efficient cars, not transit. They are cheaper, more convenient and faster.

    We do have a rule against pointless repetition. If you’re just going to copy & paste your way through this debate, don’t bother.

    You really need to study PortlandFacts.com – it is full of accurate data.

    You really need to let up on the constant promotion of your own web site. (A web site, incidentally, which does not allow comments at all, so I don’t want to hear any complaints from you about our moderation decisions here.)

    green slime lines

    Why have a debate with you when you’re just going to keep tossing out garbage like that, after you’ve been asked literally hundreds of times to knock it off?

    Drop the derisive tone, stop the copying/pasting, try to incorporate logical arguments that people make regarding your actual initial claims, or take another “comment vacation”.

  25. Bob R. Says: Doesn’t work very well in the nation’s densist urban area, Los Angeles, which gets 3649 btu/passenger-mile or New York which gets 3222.
    Again you’re leaving out rail transit. Your original claim was about “transit” in general. Cherry-picking just bus values, and then cherry picking only cars and not light trucks, proves nothing.
    JK: In terms of public policy (which is, as far as I know, why we argue transit vs. cars) it is indeed relevant to suggest people switch from light trucks to cars and from cars to more efficient cars and compare that to transit in terms of benefits vs. costs.

    Now, lets look at cars and transit without cherrypicking either vehicles or location:

    Since LRT does not exist without bus in modern America, we should look at transit systems with both bus and rail. The top ten, in terms of annual passenger-miles, average 4,027 btu per passenger-mile (reference same as above post.) Compare this to the USA average automobile average of 3,437 and “Personal trucks” average of 3,641. (Transportation Energy Data Book: Edition 29, Table 2.12.)

    Bob R. Says:Or do you merely think we should heard people into higher density by using tax money to subsidize their lifestyle?
    Can you at least keep your metaphors straight for a single sentence? First they’re poor victims being “hereded”, then they’re freeloaders enjoying a “lifestyle”. Sheesh.
    JK: I didn’t call them freeloaders. And I didn’t claim anyone enjoyed living a high density lifestyle (the word “herd” was indeed intended to refer to the fact that most people do not prefer to live in high density housing.)

    I only observed that high density tends to use subsidies (to defer its higher cost than single family houses on a per square foot of living space basis. For instance little/no high density development happened along the first light rail line, east of the Lloyd center, until tax incentives were initiated. For instance Oregonian, October 24, 1996 said: “Developers have been hesitant to build the type of housing Metro says the region needs to attract more transit riders.”

    Bob R. Says: You really need to study PortlandFacts.com – it is full of accurate data.
    … A web site, incidentally, which does not allow comments at all, so I don’t want to hear any complaints from you about our moderation decisions here.
    JK: It is a WEB SITE, not a blog!

    Thanks
    JK

  26. It is a WEB SITE, not a blog!

    That’s a rather meaningless statement. Blogs are web sites (or components thereof), and blogs aren’t the only things which have comments. The Portland Tribune is a web site, yet it has comments, for example.

    In any case, the main problem with your web site (since you invited me to check it out, even though you know I’ve read it many times over the years) is that you present it as some kind of authoritative collection of data, even though it in fact mixes data with your own conclusions and opinions.

    That alone is just fine — it is of course your right to say whatever the heck you want on your own web site.

    But you practice a sort of arrive/comment/argue/start over commenting on dozens of sites all over town and have done so for years. You come into a thread, post the same assertions you’ve posted for years, lots of people argue about them, some important points are raised which ought to change the original material on your web site (if you’re intellectually serious about it), but that material rarely changes, the online argument goes in circles and dies out… then, a few weeks later you pop up in a new thread making the exact same old arguments as though no discussion about them had ever occurred.

    Repeat over many years and on many sites. It’s Copy & Paste commentary. And it’s why we’re here in late 2010 having the exact same argument over data you’ve presented without fixing (conflation of urban/rural, referring to “transit” when you really mean “bus transit”, etc.) that we were having in early 2007. And hundreds of times in between.

    This blog has bent over backwards to allow your viewpoints to be heard and debated, despite the repetitive and unchanging quality.

    Back in June, we solicited questions for our video interview with Neil McFarlane. You posted the same items about energy usage and transit vs. small cars again, and did so in a way that was literally HUNDREDS of words long.

    I asked you to boil it down to a few phrases so we could ask it in the video, and you did not. It was another Copy & Paste, then disappear commentary.

    Nevertheless, we made a good faith effort to condense your question, it was asked, and the answer was presented in the video.

    Now, you may disagree with Neil’s answer, that’s beside the point. The point is that you didn’t actually respond and that you never commented on the video where we asked your question.

    So why should we bother to engage with you when this whole conversation will be rebooted in some subsequent thread?

    (And this sort of thing happens on many other sites around town, repeatedly.)

    [Moderator’s note on own post: An earlier version of this comment made a couple of references to a “Hit & Run” commenting style, which is the sort of hyperbole we try to avoid here, so I have altered the text. – Bob R.]

Leave a Reply to Jason McHuff Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *