More on the economics of transit use vs driving

Last week, we highlighted a recent report by the American Public Transit Association which claims that in Portland, an individual can save on average $859 per month–over $10k per year–if one holds a transit pass instead of owning an automobile. To be clear–this claimed savings requires not owning a car (or owning one less than there are drivers in a household); much of the savings include fixed costs that are incurred whenever you own a car, even if it is left in the garage. There were some questions about the automobile costs cited–while nearly $1000/month is a reasonable cost of ownership for a newly-purchased automobile of median value; it is easy to own and operate a vehicle in reasonable condition for far less money than that. On the other hand, at current fuel prices, the $88 charge for a transit pass is less than the cost of two tanks of gas.

Today, we look a bit more in detail on the economics of transit use vs automobile use, and how public policy might affect the equation going forward.
Fixed vs variable costs

When determining the cost of using (and having access to) a resource, it is useful to separate the costs into fixed costs (or access costs), which are incurred and must be paid simply to have access to the resource; and variable costs (or usage costs), which are incurred for incremental utilization of the resource. The combination of costs can range from entirely fixed to entirely variable.

In many cases, it is possible to arrange matters so that a different schedule of fixed and variable costs applies to a given resource. For example, you can choose a cell phone plan with unlimited minutes and a flat monthly fee (high fixed cost, low variable cost), or a plan with a lower monthly fee but which accrues per-minute charges (lower fixed cost, higher variable cost). You can choose to dine at the all-you-can-eat buffet (fixed cost for a meal), or go to a cafeteria and pay for your meal a la carte. And so on.

The ability to trade off fixed costs vs variable costs is an important consideration, for both parties to a transaction. For both sides, converting costs to fixed costs makes the supplier’s revenue stream more predictable; a benefit which often is used to justify lower prices. Fixed costs also reduce the need to process incremental payments for incremental usage. On the other hand, fixed costs may encourage overconsumption of a resource, particularly if there isn’t some other limit beside price involved–this is the justification phone companies give for recent moves to no longer offer unlimited data plans (whether you believe that is up to you). Important for this discussion, arrangements with high fixed costs reduce flexibility by encouraging lock-in. If A and B provide competing services; and you enter into arrangements where you pay a fixed price for free (or reduced-rate) consumption of A; this is a powerful disincentive to use B. Even if it might meet your needs under certain circumstances: You’ve already “paid for” A, so the rational choice is to use it.

And for many commuters, A stands for “automobile” and B stands for “bus”. If you already have a car sitting in the driveway, all gassed up and ready to go, buying a transit pass on top of it frequently makes no economic sense. As we live in an auto-centric society, one of the things limiting the potential of transit is the fact that many of us already have cars at our disposal. Given that much of the cost of that car is “paid for”, there is frequently little economic advantage for using transit, except for those trips where the marginal cost of driving is unusually high, either in dollars or in time. The daily commute is an example for many, particularly those living in the suburbs and working downtown.

Of course, if you already have a transit pass, and live in a dense urban environment where all the amenities you need can be reached by transit (or on foot), you may find you don’t need a car. Low density land use patterns (the UGB nonwithstanding) don’t make this an attractive option for many; but the economics of car ownership–which make occasional use of a car expensive–further make it difficult.

To see why, it is useful to examine the cost structures of both transit use and auto use. This article only discusses voluntary costs; general taxes needed to support both transit and the roads are excluded from this discussion. Also excluded are externalized costs such as pollution and congestion.

The cost structure of transit…

The cost structure of transit is pretty straightforward: You get on the bus, you need to pay the fare. In Portland, you can buy single-ride tickets for two bucks and change; you can buy a day pass for less than $5. A monthly pass is $88, and if you buy a year’s worth you get one month free. (Prices are for all-zone adult fares). The monthly pass represents a significant savings over two single-ride tickets per day; so is a no-brainer for anyone using transit regularly, even if only for commuting to work and back.

Transit also has the advantage of cost predictability. If you hold a monthly pass, you know with high certainty what your ride is gonna cost each month–there aren’t any (financial) surprises. If a bus breaks down, fixing it is on TriMet’s tab; and TriMet supplies the elbow grease to get the job done.

The question of time is where the analysis gets interesting. Transit has the advantage that when you’re a passenger and not a driver, you can do something productive with your time other than operating a motor vehicle. On the other hand, many journeys take longer on transit, and may involve the need to transfer between services, which can sometimes be unpleasant–particularly if the wait times are long and/or the transfer location is inadequately sheltered. In many parts of town, unfortunately, transit service is poor, and trips take significantly longer than they would by car. If you live in Tualatin or Happy Valley, for instance, TriMet is probably only an option if you are desperate–people who live in such places are auto-dependent.

There is one other important caveat to the low cost of transit claimed by APTA, however: it is per-person. If you have two or more adults (or older children) in a household who want to use transit, each will need a pass of their own. Young children can travel free with fare-paying parents. The costs associated with cars, on the other hand, do not vary with the number of passengers.

…and of driving

Costing models for automobile operation are far more complex. The APTA study uses a model published by the American Automobile Association, which includes the following. Fixed costs include depreciation, finance charges, insurance, licensing, and registration; variable costs include fuel, maintenance, and other consumables (most notably tires). The model doesn’t make any mention of parking or tolls, or the cost of being pulled over by Johnny Law (for those motorists who make moving violations a habit). The costs appear to assume a new car, as noted above, and different price points are provided for different levels of usage. The model does not appear to include the time cost of driving–when you are behind the wheel, that is time lost from more productive or enlightening activities.

A quick note on how the model accounts for the purchase price of a car. Car purchases are capitalized in the model–the base purchase price of a car is not considered an expense per se; though finance charges are. Instead, the depreciation of the vehicle–the loss of value over time–is booked as an expense. Note that for cars in the consumer market, amortizing depreciation over time rather than over mileage is an appropriate treatment; personal autos lose most of their value simply by virtue of sitting around–the calendar is just as important as the odometer in determining a car’s residual value.

Unlike with transit, where it is easy to jettison fixed costs and only incur variable costs simply by buying single-ride tickets rather than a pass; this is much harder to do with cars. If you don’t have a car, you can’t drive. Leasing a car is similar to owning one as far as fixed/variable costs go; automobile leases are typically structured to cover a fixed term for a fixed rate, with per-mileage charges only applying if a certain threshold is exceeded.

Other business arrangements for acquiring access to a car are considerably more expensive, and only make sense for occasional use. Traditional car rental services are generally time-based rather than mileage based (rates are per day or per week, with unlimited mileage); renting a car is often a high-friction transaction, and the car rental industry is infamous for lack of transparency, price discrimination, and creative ways to nickle and dime customers to death.

Car sharing services, such as Zipcar, offer more reasonable terms, including hourly rental, far less inconvenience, and none of the games and hassles that characterize the car rental industry (though some car rental firms, such as Hertz, are also getting into the car-sharing business). Zipcars can be rented on either a per-hour basis (about $7 per hour, depending on plan) or per day ($60-$65); and either rate includes gas, insurance, and maintenance. Car-sharing services are geared towards occasional users, however; it is generally not economical to use a Zipcar as a primary means of transportation.

Driving an automobile often involves other, unforeseen, costs and hassles–car repair being a major one. There’s also the cost of time spent behind the wheel, which cannot be spent on other productive activities. On the other hand, in a country optimized for automobile travel, with low average densities and ample free parking, travel times by car are often a fraction of transit times, especially when the suburbs are involved. Automobiles also have the advantage of being able to carry passengers (and cargo) essentially for free; that said, many of the objections that environmentalists and others have to single-occupant vehicles don’t apply (or apply less) to cars carrying multiple passengers. (A bus, after all, is essentially a car designed to hold 80 rather than five.)

Putting it together

Public transit has the advantage, generally, of being available at fare lower price points. As noted above, a single ride cost $2.35, and an annual pass is less than $1000; both of which are far cheaper than any comparable arrangements which can be made using cars. Unfortunately, the costs grow with household size, and several decades of car-friendly land-use policies have produced a suburban environment which is difficult to provide quality transit service to. Driving, on the other hand, has a high entry cost, but marginal costs per mile can be low for those who bite the bullet and decide to own one. Driving also makes more sense for larger families, and is further advantaged by the extensive network of roads, mandatory free parking, and other concessions to the automobile in our built environment.

Looking at the AAA costing model, it indicates that for a small sedan (a Toyota Corolla or similar), owning and driving it 10k miles will cost 58.6c per mile; at 15k miles, 45.1 c/mile, and at 20k miles, 38.1c/mile. Assuming a linear cost structure and doing the algebra, this works out to a fix cost of ownership of $4100 and a cost per mile of 17.6c. For a minivan, the numbers work out to 25.2c/mile, and a fixed cost of ownership of $5680. For a SUV, 27.8c per mile and $7040 of fixed costs. Figures for other car types (mid-size sedan, large sedan) are also presented–calculating their numbers is left as an exercise for the reader. Given that an annual transit pass is presently $968, for transit to make more economic sense (ignoring externalized costs and questions of time and convenience, as well as unaccounted-for costs such as parking and tolls) one would have to drive 5700 miles less if one owns a small sedan, ~3800 miles less for a minivan, or ~3500 miles less for a SUV. Assuming 250 workdays per year, that comes to 22.8 miles/day (total, not each way) for the sedan owner, 14.8 miles/day for the minivan, and 14 miles/day for the SUV.

Given all of that–the present mode split and demographics of transit and auto use aren’t too surprising; the primary users of transit are the poor (who frequently cannot afford automobiles), and urban dwellers and downtown commuters (who incur higher costs, both financial and otherwise, for automobile use). Outside these three groups, its frequently easier to just go buy a car or two–and once you’ve done that, the natural and economic thing to do is to drive it everywhere.

But–as noted above–this analysis ignores the external costs of transportation. For transit, the (uncaptured) external costs are fairly low; but for driving, they are quite high–operation of two-ton machines to transport individuals around is a gross waste of energy, and a primary source of pollution. Sound public policy is that which attempts to rein in externalized costs–given that, what can be done about this state of affairs?

The usual exhortations to improve transit service and reform land-use laws to discourage sprawling, auto-centric development obviously apply, but are outside the scope of this article. Instead, we look at ways to further migrate transit to a fixed-cost basis, and move driving to a more variable-cost basis–and to capture externalized costs as well. Unfortunately, one of the biggest cost drivers–deprecation–is highly dependent on the behavior of the automobile resale market, and as long as motorists perceive older cars to be less valuable than newer ones with similar mileage, treating depreciation as a fixed cost is likely to remain the proper way of accounting.

Reasonable policy actions include:

  • Family tickets/plans for transit. I’d like to see TriMet offer fares better geared towards families, particularly families travelling together. Right now, children under seven ride free with a fare-paying adult, and 7-17 year olds get a reduced rate. My recommendation? Bump up the free age to 10. Why 10? Because that’s the age at which it is legal to leave a child at home unattended. (The law is a bit ambiguous for ages below 10; but a 10-year old is presumed to be able to attend to himself). Barring that, it might also be useful to offer other family discounts on passes for members of the same household. By encouraging families to use the system, TriMet not only encourages off-peak business, but also encourages the next generation of riders.
  • Usage-based insurance, also known as “pay-as-you-drive”. Traditional auto insurance policies offer liability insurance for a fixed term, typically six months, and charge premiums based on prior driving record. An obvious inefficiency is present in this arrangement, as risk is proportional to how much the car is driven; liability policies in particular impose no risk when a car is non-operational. By offering usage-based insurance, motorists can pay for the coverage they need. Usage-base policies can be based on simple odometer readings (or policies which are only good for a certain number of miles), all the way up to use of sophisticated devices which electronically monitor driver behavior, including time and distance driven. Portland Afoot has a good summary of the state of mileage-based insurance in Oregon; no company presently offers true mileage-based insurance, where you purchase insurance for a set number of miles rather than a set time (a company called MileMeter offers such a program in Texas). Three insurers which do offer substantial mileage-based insurance products are include Traveler’s and Progressive, both of which supply motorists with onboard monitors to install in vehicles, and National General Assurance (formerly GMAC), which provides a similar service to OnStar customers. Progressive Insurance’s “Snapshot Discount” program is probably the most well-known usage-based insurance product, although it is a bit limited in its scope> a monitoring device is installed in a vehicle for 30 days; drivers who drive less, avoid dangerous driving times (rush hour or late at night), and avoid sudden stops are eligible for up to a 30% discount off a standard policy.
  • Mileage-based fees. Many of the taxes and fees paid to support the roads are either levied against everybody (such as local property taxes) or levied against motorists on a flat-rate basis. Registration fees are essentially de minimis in Oregon, and thus likely don’t contribute significantly to mode choice; but in many state, registering an automobile is a significant expense–and these states generally either levy a fixed fee, possibly based on vehicle classification, or a “personal property tax” based on the value of the vehicle. Oregon is one of a handful of states to impose a weight-mile tax on trucking; but presently no state imposes any distance-based tax levies (other than fuel taxes) on personal automobiles. However, ODOT recently ran a pilot program to determine the technical feasibility of implementing and collecting a “road user fee” from motorists based on mileage–a fee which would replace the motor vehicle tax. (Portland Transport coverage of the project here and here). The pilot program only looked at technical issues, not at the politics or the policy of the matter and produced the following report.

    This year, the Oregon House introduced HR 2328, to implement road usage fees. Unfortunately, the bill (which is making its way through the House and has not been taken up by the Senate) only covers electric or hybrid vehicles; not all vehicles, and is intended to “make up” for the fact that these vehicles don’t “pay their fair share” of gas tax. A fee of $0.0156 per mile is currently proposed within the bill; owners of hybrids who also purchase gasoline (subject to gas tax) would be eligible for a gas tax refund. One other element of the bill which I dislike is a “buyout option”; high mileage drivers can elect to pay a flat rate of $300 (equivalent to 19231 miles) rather than pay the per-mile rate.

  • Pollution fees to replace the flat DEQ testing charge. A road usage fee, properly implemented, could also replace/enhance the DEQ testing program as well. DEQ inspections carry a flat fee (levied on all non-exempt vehicles every two years); this fee is only intended to cover the costs of administering the program; not to capture the cost of vehicle pollution. A useful change might be to roll the cost of testing (and pollution charges) into a RUF, so that cars which are driven more pay more. While I’m on the subject, I’d expand the emissions categories of vehicles from “exempt”, “pass”, and “fail”–while vehicles which fail to meet minimum standards ought to be black-flagged as before; the “pass” range would be further divided into subranges, with vehicles that pollute more being levied higher fees. (Oh, I’d also end the ridiculous practice of exempting very old cars from the DEQ testing program program. If you like driving your beautifully-restored, cherry-red ’52 Filthbelcher around town, with its carbeurated engine and lack of modern emissions equipment, you should pay for the pollution this causes. No need to subsidize the hobbies of auto enthusiasts).
  • Peer-to-peer car sharing. While the praises of Zipcar is sung above, not everyone will find it a useful service. Another possibility is peer-to-peer carsharing, in which owners of automobiles can make their cars available for short-term rental by others. There are legal obstacles to this, but a bill (House Bill 3149) in the Oregon Legislature designed to enable such services by requiring auto insurance policies to “play nice” with carsharing programs was recently passed by the Oregon Senate by a wide margin. (A similar version was previously passed by the House; minor technical differences between the two bills must be ironed out before it can be sent to Governor Kitzhaber for his signature).
  • Per-mile leasing. One other idea which might be useful is changes to the automobile leasing market. Leasing cars has long been trickier than leasing real estate, in no larger part because vehicles lose value a lot faster than land and buildings do. The current common structure of a vehicle lease (the “closed-ended lease”)–with a fixed monthly rate and a fixed term, and a mileage threshold that the lessor must keep below or incur a penalty, came into being due to abuses prevalent with open-ended leases. Were auto dealers to offer mileage-based leases, with a larger component of the payment structure mileage-dependent (something more practical with modern technology); it might help bridge the gap between automobile ownership and car-sharing. OTOH, given the nature of the used car market–I can see why leasing companies wouldn’t be interested in going along.
36 Comments

36 Responses to More on the economics of transit use vs driving

  1. Ron Swaren
    July 24, 2011 at 4:24 pm Link

    In the 1970’s, up until the OPEC oil crisis, the cost of driving could be practically zip, if you wanted. My first car cost $100, ran good, had high mpg, and gas was always below 30 cents a gallon. Furthermore, insurance was not required until later in that decade. Sure it was risky, but much less so if you were a good driver. If the $100 car actually wore out, you could just get another one. Well, eventually they went to $200.

    A lot of people, even today, can still follow this attitude: get a cheap car, that runs well or is cheap to repair especially if you know someone—however, the gas costs quite a lot more relative to earnings. Or a new car that is trouble-free is calculated into monthly earnings and then, if need be, extra income is found to pay for it. And it may very well be that their mobility by auto helps them foresee a way to make the extra money. Not saying that this couldn’t happen another way, also.

    The cost of driving, though is also related to the longevity and repair cost of the vehicle. Once the Toyota or Honda is paid for it could be much cheaper to operate. Not so much with the Beemer or Mercedes.

  2. AL M
    July 24, 2011 at 4:49 pm Link

    Got some good suggestions in there Scott, especially bumping up the free transit age to 10 years old.

    As the economy starts falling apart all bets will have to be taken off the table however.

    There is a distinct possibility that drastic change is going to be forced on us weather we like it or not.

    What that will actually mean is yet to be discovered but your little essay here might be most timely.

  3. EngineerScotty
    July 24, 2011 at 4:52 pm Link

    Maybe I should do a post entitled “Transportation in a post-imperial America”. It would probably look a lot like Curitiba. :)

  4. AL M
    July 24, 2011 at 4:56 pm Link

    “Curitiba”
    Huh?

  5. AL M
    July 24, 2011 at 5:05 pm Link

    You talking about Brazil eh?

  6. Ron Swaren
    July 24, 2011 at 5:11 pm Link

    There’s always lot of cheap labor in Brazil, so the developed areas can do pretty much what they want to.

  7. AL M
    July 24, 2011 at 5:15 pm Link

    “There’s always lot of cheap labor in Brazil, so the developed areas can do pretty much what they want to.”

    ~~>Maybe so Ron but you have to admire their transit system, they got it right on all aspects.
    And its not the labor so much that makes transit in this country so expensive, its the many layers of management over that labor. Management of course would like you to believe its the labor that’s the problem, of course that’s absurd.

    Look at Milwaukie Light rail, huge expensive boondoggle that has nothing to do with labor.

  8. EngineerScotty
    July 24, 2011 at 5:17 pm Link

    Yeah, and if certain factions get there way, there will soon be lots of cheap labor here. :)

    While Brazil might have a bus system that TriMet drivers envy, part of the reason they CAN have such an extensive bus system is the drivers get paid peanuts.

  9. AL M
    July 24, 2011 at 5:49 pm Link

    While Brazil might have a bus system that TriMet drivers envy, part of the reason they CAN have such an extensive bus system is the drivers get paid peanuts.

    ~~~>Nice try Scott but if you watch that little video you will hear the big man himself say that “rail systems cost a fortune to put in, not so with bus systems”.

    And since your so good at research, why don’t you find out exactly what they get paid and how that compares to other jobs down there via cost of living in Brazil, which of course is obviously much lower than the cost of living in this great democracy of ours!

  10. AL M
    July 24, 2011 at 5:55 pm Link

    And while your at it find out how much the GENERAL MANAGER of the transit agency gets paid and how many administrators, supervisors, coordinators, assistant managers, etc they have.

    Get a whole flow chart of that agencies management structure.

    I will bet you, that there management structure is nothing like the one you see in Portland.

  11. R A Fontes
    July 24, 2011 at 5:55 pm Link

    An interesting variation on car-sharing showed up while researching an op-ed for the Oregonian: Daimler is backing an operation called Car2go which exclusively uses Smartfortwo cars. Unlike Zipcar, Car2go rents by the minute @ 35 cents, with a one hour max of $12.99, and a 24 hour max of $65.99. They also permit the renter to drop the car off at any legal parking space within their operating area while Zipcar requires the renter to return the car to the original parking spot. Car2go has a one-time registration fee of $35.

    So once registration is paid, anywhere one customer can drive in six minutes or less would be about the same as TriMet’s base adult fare ; 12 minutes or less for two traveling together. Car2go includes parking fees, fuel, etc.

    The service is only offered in Austin and Vancouver, BC at present.

  12. AL M
    July 24, 2011 at 6:02 pm Link

    Hong Kong has was has to be the absolutely best integrated system in the world:

    The 7 million daily riders have access to something known as an “octopus card” which is accepted as currency not just to move them around the city, but also at parking meters, convenience stores, and fast-food restaurants

  13. EngineerScotty
    July 24, 2011 at 6:25 pm Link

    There isn’t much good data on Brazil available in English, and I don’t speak Portuguese, so you’ll have to bear with me on this one. But here’s a page listing comparative salaries for many different jobs in Brazil, including bus driver. The data’s a bit old, but yer average Brazilian bus jockey netted, in 2004, about $306 in 2005 dollars per month. Accounting for equivalent purchasing power, that comes to about $762/month. And according to at least one expat website, Brazil’s three main cities (Rio, São Paulo, and Brasilia) are among the 15 most expensive places to live in the world.

    Brazil, despite its significant economic expansion in the past few years, is still a place where the majority of people are in poverty or close to it. Brazil’s middle class is growing, but poverty is still far more widespread than it is here. And driving a bus is not a middle-class profession there.

    How much management overhead is to be found in Brazilian transport, I don’t know–however government corruption is much more endemic there than in the US. Curitiba’s bus system is done on a public-private basis, with bus operations franchised out to private operators.

    Rail systems are expensive to install, I’ll agree; moreso for developing nations. And so far, attempts to replace the bus system in Curitiba have been proposed and gone nowhere. But elsewhere in the country, there has been a veritable building spree–keep in mind, the World Cup will be hosted there in ’14, and the Summer Games in ’16.

    Wanting PDX to be more like Curitiba is definitely in the category of be-careful-what-you-wish-for-because-you-might-get-it.

  14. joshuadf
    July 24, 2011 at 7:31 pm Link

    Great post. Off topic, but I’ll point out that in the last 10 years or the availability of Amazon.com and similar services have dramatically altered the landscape of who “needs” an automobile for necessities. For my family at least, zipcar plus transit plus the Internet unlocked a carfree lifestyle.

  15. AL M
    July 24, 2011 at 9:47 pm Link

    Wanting PDX to be more like Curitiba is definitely in the category of be-careful-what-you-wish-for-because-you-might-get-it.

    I’m quite certain we are going to get it.
    And there will be plenty more that “might get it” along with the bus operators.

    We are heading in the same vortex as GREECE!

  16. AL M
    July 24, 2011 at 9:51 pm Link

    America welcome to your FUTURE!

  17. al m
    July 24, 2011 at 10:14 pm Link

    Oh I forgot Scot, thanks for researching that, I’m sure the “management” of the bus division over there is really not much better off than the bus drivers, except for the bribery etc.

    I’d bet ya that transit company has very little management period.

    In short, there is no “executive class” involved in transit along with the low wage bus drivers.

    Everybody (except the elite) is screwed in Brazil.

    And the way things are heading the working class in America will be in the same boat as the Brazilians.

  18. Allan
    July 24, 2011 at 10:55 pm Link

    very well done article. It puts into words what I’d been thinking. Basically- everyone makes the best decision for themselves at the time. Once they have a car, every decision after that follows suit. Most folks that move here have cars, and thus, they rarely if ever take transit. People that do ditch their cars can save a ton of money, but for what? Most jobs pay well enough that its not a factor. Its only if you are unemployed or have a huge need for every penny you earn that you’ll consider dumping the faster, more convenient option. This is where bikes come in. They take very little maintenance cost, no gas $ and are comparably fast for most urban trips, especially with parking. Transit will have a tough time trying to beat bikes!

  19. EngineerScotty
    July 24, 2011 at 11:07 pm Link

    There’s no “executive class” in government in the US, either–with the possible exception of political bosses in certain corrupt locales who can make lots of money in bribes and such (Oregon doesn’t appear to have that particular problem), and a few NCAA football coaches.

    Neil McFarlane’s salary is in the neighborhood of $250k/year. The CEO of a comparably-sized corporation would make millions. That’s getting into “executive-class”. Folks may be getting rich off of government, but the ones who are aren’t generally employed by it.

    @Allan: Transit shouldn’t try to beat bikes; a valid complaint about transit in the US (courtesy of Jarrett Walker) is that it frequently tries to compete with walking rather than driving, hence the ridiculously-short stopping distances on local routes. But a bus that stops every 250m is going to be slow, and not be competitive with the car.

  20. Joseph E
    July 24, 2011 at 11:24 pm Link

    The big cost you did not address is parking. Currently parking is heavily subsidized in Portland. A 200 square foot parking space downtown costs only $10 or $15 a day with a monthly pass, and less than that everywhere elese in the city, even though a 1 bd apartment in that area with 1000 square feet rents for $2500 a month.

    In the rest of the city, parking is almost always included in the price of a real estate, wether thru higher rents or higher home prices. However, if you find a few places with and without off-street parking spots to compare, you will see that each space costs about $50 a month in the denser neighborhoods. In a reasonable world, a parking space would cost about 1/2 as much as an equivalent amount of square footage indoors, which would be closer to $100 or $150 a month (depending on location), so again parking is subsidized, due to minimum parking requirements and “free” street parking.

    TriMet can start helping by charging a fair, market-based price for parking at all their locations. The best solution would be to lease the garages and lots to a private operator.

    Portland could also get rid of parking minimums and start charging for “free” street parking (which is valuable space that could otherwise be used for bike lanes or bus lanes, for example). This would be one of the cheapest and fastest ways to reduce the negative externalities of driving, while improving transit.

  21. jim karlock
    July 25, 2011 at 3:13 am Link

    EngineerScotty Says: Maybe I should do a post entitled “Transportation in a post-imperial America”. It would probably look a lot like Curitiba. :)
    JK: Only had time to scan this thread, but be VERY CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR:
    Curitiba’s high density layout that enables the BRT was ONLY possible because Brazil was under a military dictatorship at the time and the Curitiba people had the ear of the dictators.

    This was personally related to me when the previous mayor of Curitiba (Jamie?) visited Portland. After the event we went to a local bar, and after a few minutes most people ignored Jamie, so when they left him alone at his table, I chatted with him a bit. (I do know some of the right questions to ask!)

    Thanks
    JK

  22. EngineerScotty
    July 25, 2011 at 9:23 am Link

    JK… I gave Al the same warning. :)

  23. AL M
    July 25, 2011 at 3:59 pm Link

    The CEO of a comparably-sized corporation would make millions. That’s getting into “executive-class”

    CEO’s are the criminal class, aka power elite, executive class are the people that enable the power elite, like Mr Macfarlane, he is definitely in the executive class.

    Paid a mid six figure income, with unknown perks, to talk and implement decisions that are coming from above him.

    (And I think we should plan a Portland Transport field trip to Curitiba!)

  24. bjcefola
    July 26, 2011 at 12:20 am Link

    When looking at mode split data, is there a gender difference?

  25. Ron Swaren
    July 26, 2011 at 10:25 am Link

    “The 7 million daily riders have access to something known as an “octopus card””

    And it’s good in the stir-fry, too….. : )
    BTW, yesterday, I learned that stir-fry restaurants use five times the energy that regular ones do, because everything is cooked with high heat, and it ain’t electric. Could be a new source of global warming.
    (note: I know this is off topic)

  26. Bob R.
    July 26, 2011 at 10:35 am Link

    “octopus card” … And it’s good in the stir-fry, too….. :

    Ron, you must also consider the ingredients being prepared when considering a carbon footprint. A place that stir fries primarily veggies is going to have a much lower farm-to-table footprint as one which stir fries primarily meats (and the type of meat is important as well). Yes, we global warming types have our tendrils in every argument. :-)

  27. Ron Swaren
    July 26, 2011 at 10:53 am Link

    “Maybe so Ron but you have to admire their transit system, they got it right on all aspects.
    And its not the labor so much that makes transit in this country so expensive, its the many layers of management over that labor. Management of course would like you to believe its the labor that’s the problem, of course that’s absurd.

    I wasn’t thinking so much of the transit operators, as of the construction workers who build the neighborhoods and the agricultural workers who supply the food, plus a lot of other services. In most countries these are floating populations that are notoriously low paid. You would think a city employee might have a more secure life. OTOH, it is still Latin America and anything could happen (like here, too). I don’t know how impoverished they actually are, when there is very small chance that they will ever get sent somewhere in the world to remove a dictator, plus they have lots of beaches. Not all wealth is measured in money. So, as long as those “impoverished classes” crank out offspring there will likely be cheap labor to be had.

    (And I think we should plan a Portland Transport field trip to Curitiba!)

    How long does it take to get there by bus? Can Tri-Met fit a rest room into one of their buses?

    America welcome to your FUTURE!
    With projects like the new Oakland-Bay bridge being fabricated in China that could very well be the shape of our future.

  28. EngineerScotty
    July 26, 2011 at 12:12 pm Link

    Yes, the HK transit system is quite good. Excellent coverage by frequent busses, and numerous rail corridors of every type to boot. And as noted, the Octopus card provides hassle-free payment for everything.

    (True story. I have in-laws that live near Yuen Long, a “town” in the New Territories; and they happen to live along the light-rail line. However, rail connections between the New Territories and downtown HK are poor; depending on where you are going, its often quicker to catch a bus. So to get places, we would take the LRT to the Yuen Long transit center, and from there transfer to a bus for the ride to the city center…)

    How long does it take to get there [Curitiba] by bus?

    Unless TriMet busses have amphibious and/or off-road capability, you won’t be driving to South America. While many people refer to the so-called “Pan American Highway“; it isn’t continous–there’s no reasonable vehicular route through the Darien Gap between Colombia and Panama. You could possibly get through in a Jeep, but not in a New Flyer.

    Regarding cooking–few, if any restaurants, use electric-powered heating appliances; gas is far more efficient for conversion to heat than electricity is. (This is the same reason that a gas furnace or water-heater is more efficient than an electric one). The temperatures and heat involved in stir-frying may make it less inefficient that other means of food preparation, but its not the fuel that’s at issue.

  29. Jeff F
    July 26, 2011 at 12:25 pm Link

    The temperatures and heat involved in stir-frying may make it less inefficient that other means of food preparation, but its not the fuel that’s at issue.

    Seems very strange to me, because the technique of high heat and small pieces of food means the cooking process is very short. After all, it developed from a need to cook with a very limited fuel supply. I would guess that the opposite is true: it’s an extremely efficient method of cooking–unless you’re the one doing all the necessary prep work.

    And this is making me hungry.

  30. Ron Swaren
    July 26, 2011 at 2:35 pm Link

    I would guess that the opposite is true: it’s an extremely efficient method of cooking–unless you’re the one doing all the necessary prep work.

    You’re arguing with the History Channel on that one, not JK.

  31. Bill H
    July 26, 2011 at 7:12 pm Link

    Just wanted to follow up on the comment a ways back about Car2Go carsharing. I found myself having to travel to Austin more frequently lately, so I signed up to give it a try. I’ve used the service on two trips now, most recently about a week and a half ago.

    It is a very different experience than Zipcar, as one can just walk up to a car on the street, swipe a card, and be on your way. When you’re done you can leave it parked anywhere in the area and just leave it. It is very liberating, really, and would be an ideal complement to a point-to-point bikesharing service.

    The downsides I experienced were based on the fact that they have a few technical glitches to work out. Most trips were flawless however, and the 2 times I had to call in there was a live person there to help.

    The other downside would be if you need anything bigger than a smart car. I didn’t, but this is where Zipcar makes sense. I own a car, but am a Zipcar member for those occasions where my Civic isn’t enough.

    Finding an on-street parking space in downtown Austin on a busy weekend evening was difficult, but that doesn’t have much to do with Car2Go. A few more reserved spaces would have been nice.

    I had no problem finding a car nearby, as the map of available cars on the iPhone app I used was updated continuously.

  32. R A Fontes
    July 27, 2011 at 1:24 pm Link

    Bill H –

    Thanks for your follow up. Just for your experiences, do you think that Car2Go is successful enough that we here in Portland might be getting the service or one like it someday?

  33. Mark
    July 29, 2011 at 3:36 pm Link

    And they took into account the added commuting time in both directions too, right? It was still less expensive while spending an additional 22 hours each month sitting in a light rail car? That time, at upwards of $30 per hour, was counted too, right?

  34. Bob R.
    July 29, 2011 at 3:40 pm Link

    Mark –

    Bearing in mind that transit doesn’t pretend to replace all automobile trips, it does work well for a lot of people. And for some of those people, letting someone else do the driving (bus or rail) frees up time to get productive work done that can’t be done while driving. Or just catching up on your RSS feeds and Facebooking before you settle in at the workplace.

    Mobile technologies are changing the way many people work and communicate, and having more time to interact with our new tech instead of having to be attentive driving a vehicle, will provide a boost to the numbers of those who are better-served by transit than by single-occupancy vehicles.

  35. Paul Johnson
    August 3, 2011 at 8:08 pm Link

    I’m really against the idea of accomodating small children on TriMet more than they’re already accomodated. This has less to do with the kids and more to do with parents. This city seems to have this thing going on where having kids absolves you of being resonsible for keeping them under control and excuses you from being polite to other people, sadly. If parents and children could use their inside voice, not block handicapped or bicycle areas, and fold their strollers, that would be great. Until then, i believe children under 10 should be required to pay the full WES fare for all TriMet and Portland Streetcar routes.

    It’s not our fault that parents made the choice to be parents, so it’s not exactly fair to cut them a break because they made bad choices in life. Don’t punish the rest of us for their mistake.

Leave a Reply

By posting a comment, you are granting a license to Portland Transport for your comment. Please refer to The Rules.