The Smart Growth movement has long demonstrated a keen understanding of the importance of rhetoric. Terms like livability, transportation choice, and even “smart growth” enable advocates to argue by assertion rather than by evidence. Smart Growth rhetoric thrives in a political culture that rewards the clever catchphrase over drab data analysis, but often fails to identify the risks for cities inherent in their war against “auto-dependency” and promotion of large-scale mass transit to boost the “sustainability” of communities.
Yet in pursuing this transit-friendly future political leaders rarely confront this inescapable reality: public transportation is fiscally unsustainable and utterly dependent on the very car-drivers transit boosters so often excoriate. For example, a major source of funding for transit comes from taxes paid by motorists, which include principally fuel taxes but also sales taxes, registration fees and transportation grants. The amount of tax diversion varies from place to place, but whether the metro region is small or large the subsidies are significant. In Gainesville, Florida – a college town of 120,000 – the regional transit system received 80 percent of the city’s local option gas tax in 2008. In New York City, the Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority diverts 68 percent of its toll revenues to subways and buses.
In addition to local subsidies, state and federal agencies fund transit operations with revenue from gas taxes and other motorist user fees. In 2007 transit agencies received $10.7 billion from the federal Highway Trust Fund, and that is a conservative figure since another $11.7 billion was diverted for vaguely phrased “non-highway purposes.”
In contrast, fare box recovery doesn’t come close to covering operating expenses. Nor can transit pay for its own capital outlay. Last year the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority moved to dedicate toll revenue and toll bonds to cover half the cost of the $5.26 billion Dulles Metrorail project.
The implications of transit’s auto-dependency are serious. Americans drove 11 billion fewer miles between 2008 and 2009, and for each mile not traveled local, state, and federal taxes were not collected. Without these anticipated revenues, transit systems across the country have suffered and, ironically, those hit hardest are the people who are dependent on public transportation ,that is in most cities, the poor and the young.
In D.C., transit riders are being warned by Metro officials to expect half-hour waits for buses and trains and more crowded rides as they cut services and lay off positions to close a $40 million budget shortfall. Santa Clara County’s Valley Transit Authority has announced plans to reduce bus service by 8 percent and light rail service by 6.5 percent. In Arizona, both Tempe and Phoenix face major cuts that will lengthen wait times and eliminate routes. Even as demand for transit increases in states like Minnesota, the decline in funding is leading to major readjustments in service.
The situation is so dire in New York City – with by far the most extensive transit system in the country – that advocates used students as props to protest service cuts caused by a $400 million budget shortfall. Though transit receives funding from other sources, there can be no mistaking the key role played by motorists.
The decline in driving can be attributed largely to the economic downturn and increased unemployment, but even when the recession ends transit agencies will face an uncertain funding future. New technologies are making automobiles cleaner and more fuel efficient, which will allow people to drive more while paying and polluting less. If auto makers meet new federal standards, cars will soon be achieving 35.5 miles per gallon instead of today’s 27.5 mpg average. Economic growth continues to disperse and there has been a strong uptick in telecommuting.
But perhaps the biggest threat to the future of auto-dependent transit is the very “cause” that seeks to establish it as the preferred travel mode. The planning doctrine called Smart Growth with its rationale of sustainable development is growing in popularity in urban areas across the country. Local officials are enamored with visions of auto-light cities where the buses are full, sidewalks are crowded and there are more bicycles on the road than cars.
Beneath the appealing rhetoric of Smart Growth rests the assumption that automobiles are intrinsically bad and that public policy should be directed at restricting their use. Rarely do policymakers weigh the automobile’s many benefits and the improving technologies that are mitigating its negative environmental impact. Even rarer is discussion of whether transit can realistically match the convenience and flexibility of the automobile for both individuals and families.
Distracted perhaps by pictures of ornate transit hubs and shiny rail cars, many policy makers fail to focus on developing a fiscally sustainable plan for public transportation. They miss the fundamental problem that anything heavily subsidized –particularly in a budget constrained atmosphere – is, by definition, unsustainable. (To the extent roads are subsidized, it breaks down to about a half-penny per passenger mile; transit subsidies are 100 times more than driving subsidies.) Ideally, user fees would cover all expenses of all transportation modes, including driving.
A responsible policy goal should be for transit users to put their fair share in the fare box. However, given the current tax diversion imbalance, local officials should at least target a near-term goal for fare box recovery of 85 percent of costs instead of its current one-third average. This will reduce both their fatal auto-dependency and the instability that comes when external revenue sources are impacted by external factors like an economic downturn.
Transit agencies should also right-size their bus fleets. Despite visions of large 55-passenger vehicles filled to capacity with contented commuters, only a small portion of routes in any urban area can fill these big box buses even during certain peak times. A smaller sized fleet would be not only less expensive but also more flexible, allowing cities to adjust routes and increase headways for greater service. It would also have a smaller carbon footprint.
Finally, responsible policymakers should suspend most of their plans to build rail transit. In addition to routinely running over-budget, rail transit- outside of a few cities such as Washington DC and New York- simply does not carry many passengers relative to automobiles to justify its enormous operating expenses . The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, for example, spent $55.5 million in operating expenses in 2008, recovering just $8.6 million from passenger fares and costing taxpayers an average of $5.88 per trip.
Rubber tire transit is more efficient compared to rail as a service to those needing public transportation. Santa Clara’s operating expenses per vehicle revenue mile were 25 percent less for bus than for light rail. Additionally, bus transit is far more flexible, easier to expand and less disruptive in the construction phase.
Essentially, policymakers need to see transit as a service with an important but limited role to play in most urban regions. With jobs and more activities spreading to the suburbs and exurbs – a process often accelerated by economically disruptive urban policies, cities should focus transit on a limited number of central core commuters as well as those people who cannot drive. Unfortunately, such goals are too modest for planners who envision transit as the catalyst for large scale social engineering and who have little concern for their regions’ economic bottom line.
The dirty little secret remains that public transportation would collapse without the automobile. It will remain unsustainable as long as it remains dependent on that which public policy is trying to discourage. Smart Growth rhetoric makes for great campaign literature but not for smart decision-making. Responsible officials should question the underlying assumptions about automobiles and begin reconsidering the fiscal calculus that underlies transit policy.
Ed Braddy is the executive director of the American Dream Coalition, a non-profit public policy organization that examines transportation and land-use policies at the local level. The ADC’s annual conference will be held this year on June 10-12 in Orlando, Florida.
Photo: ahockley
Comments
28 responses to “Who’s Dependent on Cars? Try Mass Transit”
I re-read your article a few times. I even dropped in at the American Dream Coalition website. In the interest of full disclosure, I’d like to know what organizations are funding this coalition. I have a feeling that I know, but confirmation would be nice for your readers. This information, is strangely absent from the ADC page.
What you advocate, both here, and from the ADC is painting oneself into a corner. Creating an even deeper dependence on petroleum. It seems that a majority of the articles on this site follow those lines.
A little recent history for you to consider. I reside very close to Portland, Oregon. Portland has been described as a “model” of urban planning. Transit and bicycles are high priorities for the Portland Mero area. An Urban Growth Boundary loosely confines development to in-fill, as a method to control sprawl, and preserve farmland and open spaces. This sounds contrary to the ADC belief system completely.
One mile north of Portland, is the City of Vancouver. Vancouver, Washington, has no urban growth boundary, lax development guidance, a skeletal transit system and a heavy dependence on exurban development. Does this sound pleasant to you? It sounds like a libertarian dream.
Now, let’s go back, just before the “financial crisis”. Speculation on these new exurban developments was running full steam, fuel was cheap (relatively), construction was rolling at full-tilt in Vancouver. Farms in the rural areas, were re-zoned residential, and taxes were raised, and nuisance lawsuits against farmers forced many out. It was a developer’s paradise. A vast majority of Vancouver, was becoming residential sprawl, and low-paying retail.
In Portland, the growth boundary held fairly firm. A bicycle plan was enacted (much to the protest of corporate libertarians), and light rail plans were laid out. In-fill development was encouraged, and areas were revitalized.
Fast forward, to immediately post-hurricane Katrina. Fuel prices shot up over 200% in a matter of a few weeks. for many, in the exurban development, long commutes went from being a minor annoyance, and the price to pay for a semi-rural existence, to a painful reality, sapping incomes and causing home values in these areas to plummet substantially. SUV vehicles either fell into repossession, parked in yards or were sold off at well below book value Since transit facilities were largely unavailable, or insufficient, and places of meaningful employment were many miles away, the suburban dream became a form of nightmare for many.
At the same time, Housing values inside of the Urban Growth Boundary held fairly firm. Bicycle and transit use increased dramatically during this time. Farmer’s markets appeared in many neighborhoods. The reality, is that these options protected neighborhoods during the price-gouging that occurred in the wake of Katrina.
As I read what you’ve written, it shows your dream scenario, is tied to the fortunes of petroleum, in the misguided hopes that fuel will once again be 35 cents a gallon, and will remain that, well into the future. To be honest, it would create a captive audience for oil companies, allowing them to charge what they will. It smacks of ignorance, in regards to history, and policy. However, I do not believe that you are ignorant. I believe that you are being deceptive, in a deliberate fashion. Yes, your article, is the opposite of reality. The days of “happy motoring” are coming to a close, and that is frightening to many. We built an empire based on cheap fuel, and now we’ll have to find a way to keep that empire without it. There will not be a viable electric car, or a magical hydrogen car. It’s just not going to happen.
Now, how about you disclose, what corporate entities are supporters of “The American Dream Coalition”? I see several members are part of the corporate libertarian organization “The Cato Institute”. Perhaps you can come clean.
Hi, P.I.E.
Since you would not believe me if I told you we are not backed by large corporate titans, I will not go through the effort. You’ve already drawn conclusions …
… which, I must observe, proves you are arguing by assertion rather than by evidence. (See paragraph 1, sentence 2 above)
Thank you for making my point.
I didn’t click around quite enough at the ADC site. Prominent members:
Reason Foundation
Heritage Foundation
Thoreau Institute
Georgia Public Policy Foundation
Santa Barbara Safe Streets
Home Builders Association of Central Arizona
Home Builders Association of Georgia
Special Properties, Inc.
Charley’s Taxi
Taxpayers League of Minnesota
I see a few potential conflict of interests here, when it comes to objectivity. This leaves two possibilities, either you actually believe the talking points in your article, or you are acting on the influence of organizations that will lose a lot of profits from intelligent development. Unfortunately, your credibility has been reduced to the size of a higgs boson, and is equally elusive.
Thanks for taking the time to discuss this, I really feel strongly about it and love studying extra on this topic. If potential, as you gain experience, would you mind updating your weblog with extra information? It is extremely useful for me. signs solutions
The critics of this article refuse to debate the real issues that have been brought up by this article. These are:
Rail transit is subsidized by gas taxes. These are currently in decline because of reduced driving (recession) and greater fuel economy. If this trend continues, transit may remain in a state of crisis. This also creates the paradox that as we encourage alternative high-efficiency personal vehicles, we de-fund mass transit.
The cost-per-trip both $$$ and environmentally is actually quite high in locations where trains aren’t used much. i.e having a near empty train with a large capacity carry only a few people translates into high cost and high energy consumption.
Transit does work in very high-density environments such as Manhatten and DC. This is also why it works so well in major Europeon cities and Asia. Even in San Francisco the transit system runs mostly empty because it is only used widely during rush hours in spite of high density housing in large parts of the city and a large tourist population. On weekends and evenings, it is still too easy there for folks to get around by car and park.
If there was ever an arguement made by assertion, this is it.
You assert that “the situation is dire” in NY transit, and that proof of that is that “advocates” used students as props. In other words, they asked people who can’t or don’t want to use cars to protest so that their taxes be spent for their benefit. How radical.
It is also of note that the derivitive jotkinites–the business folk and pseudo-policy jocks who vulgarize a sophisticated (if problematic)ideology–have defined two principle enemies: smart growth and “auto-light” cities. Yes, let’s be against that. The future is in sprawl and smog-making cars. Who could possibly be for that but…real estate speculators, libertarian ideologues, and CATO funded flat-earthers?
To paraphrase Hofstader, when the status quo is threatened, anxiety re-writes history.
Clearly the experiences of Europe and Asia demonstrate that transit is an “unsustainable proposition”. European and Asian cities also clearly demonstrate that transit cannot “realistically match the convenience and flexibility of the automobile for both individuals and families.” Further, I appreciate the undepth analysis this article covers pertaining to road/vehicle transportation subsidy to balance the ascertions surrounding transit subsidization.
If you really believe the extent roads require subsidy matches the amount transit takes from gasoline tax and registration revenue, you are either ignorant and not worth reading or disingenuous regarding the facts. Stop the silliness
I am honestly curious to know if there is a mass transit system in the world that doesn’t experience massive budget shortfalls? What about any that are profitable?
What about the subsidies on cars? Would the auto transport system operate without taxes, massive gov projects?
Is the tax on cars a Pigouvian one, “a sin tax” on auto externalities?
Subsidies are often seen as evil, and the bane of the free market. However, often the most subsidized industry in the United States goes overlooked.
Petroleum. What would fuel cost, if petroleum companies themselves had to provide the security, to defend their interests abroad? What’s the total on that war in Iraq. Don’t tell me that you still believe that it’s about WMD. Quite simply, petroleum companies needed to get rid of Saddam Hussain, because he was smuggling too much oil out of Iraq, under the oil-for-food program.
Yes, our military, is a security force for corporations. When you hear “America’s interests abroad”, that means “Corporations interests”.
” Quite simply, petroleum companies needed to get rid of Saddam Hussain, because he was smuggling too much oil out of Iraq, under the oil-for-food program.” -portlander_in_exile
These tall tales are great for the grandkids. Please share them with them, not us.
People vote with their preferences, and given their druthers will overwhelmingly go with the kind of private transportation you get with a car. Now I am not from Portland, so maybe I am not qualified to speak on this topic. But I did grow up in New York and I have experienced a public transportation utopia first hand. And to be quite frank you could only get me back into that mode of mobility at gunpoint. I can only assume that many of our preening Smart Growth advocates grew up in the back seat of a minivan and have confused an embracing of public transportation with leaving home for the independence of adulthood.
Our grandparents fled the cramped and at times dangerous inner cities for a reason. To obtain a better life for themselves and their families. Any attempt to move the suburban population back into the urban core now will trigger – if it hasn’t already – a political revolt that hasn’t been seen in decades. Keep an eye on California and SB 375.
The real future is in the new technologies being developed by automobile manufacturers. Everything else is just unrealistic, outrageously expensive, faddish nonsense.
I am honestly curious to know if there is a mass transit system in the world that doesn’t experience massive budget shortfalls? What about any that are profitable?
Great insights there Ed, those statistics are very interesting to look over! I agree that public transportation would indeed collapse without the automobile. I remember reading a Forbes article where it said that in Portugal there was close to 800 cars per 1000 residents! You just hope that more environmentally friendly measures are took by the manufacturers in the near future. All the best: Ryan
This is fun. Can’t hardly wait to have my own information card. Make my life easy and simple.
Edinburgh Airport Parking
If you drive to and from work, many times the traffic can only add to your frustration and stress. There are several different ways that you can help to reduce commuter stress. The implications of transit’s auto-dependency are serious. Americans drove 11 billion fewer miles between 2008 and 2009 and for each mile not traveled local, state, and federal taxes were not collected. Without these anticipated revenues, transit systems across the country have suffered and ironically those hit hardest are the people who are dependent on public transportation in most cities.
outlook add ins
Essentially, what you are saying is that mass transportation everywhere in the world is a money hole that only consumes and brings no profit. They depend on the taxes paid by the regular motorists for automobile insurance or gas tax. If this is indeed the case, what are the real viable alternatives if there are any? Or are we just waiting for the next emerging technologies that will allow us cheaper public transportation?
Building a mass transit may be a large undertaking for a city, but the future benefits will outweigh the expenses in the long run. There are many reasons a metropolitan area needs a mass transit system, including improving environmental impacts, convenience and traffic.Japanese used cars exporter|Japanese used vehicles sale
The building of mass transit will cost a lot that’s for sure. It is not like it can be accomplished in a day. However with the cost of fuel and effects of harmful car emissions to the environment this is one way to curb all these. Not to mention the cost of car maintenance–just look at this thread: http://www.passatworld.com/forums/showthread.php?t=323716
I support this idea. Of course the construction and cost won’t be easy for everyone.
We recently bought our pretty house in the suburbs. Me and my husband, we both work in the city, not to mention our daughter needs be taken to kindergarden on a daily basis. How would we be able to adapt this life rhythm without our two cars? My old car broke, so I quickly contacted Los Angeles car sales and ordered a new one. It`s not like we necessarily chose for this lifestyle, but there`s no other way to live in a big city and face all daily challenges.
For people around the world living their peaceful lives in small towns, having restrained activities and a strong common local view upon the importance of protecting the environment, yes, I agree, it must be easier to live without a car. But how do you manage to have a normal life when living in a metropolis? I know it can be hard either way. Imagine yourself parking in Central London without having previously payed for this service. Still, these are daily routine daily grinds to be faced. I for one could`t live without my car. And also imagine that I already paid a lot for my bmw leasing and I’m not planning on quitting very soon. I will just pay fees when I’m required… that’s life.
If you`re not that into cars, but you simply need one for going to work and reaching back home in the afternoons, I guess you can do very well with a used car that will cover your needs for a few years maybe. Don`t worry for it, as long as it won`t work anymore, just check formalities for automobile donation and get another one. There are plenty to choose from.
Thanks for ones marvelous posting! I really enjoyed reading it, you could be a great author.I will remember to bookmark your blog and will often come back at some point. I want to encourage that you continue your great work, have a nice holiday weekend! Chicago SEO | Jacelyn Cecot
No doubt building a mass transit will be a large undertaking for a city. The future benefits will outweigh the expenses in the long run. As this mass transit system will improve environmental impacts, convenience and traffic in the metropolitan area.
Whichpayday.co.uk/Know-your-payday-lender-options.html
Thanks for sharing excellent informations. Your web-site is very cool. I’m impressed by the details that you have on this web site. It reveals how nicely you perceive this subject. Bookmarked this web page, will come back for extra articles. You, my pal, ROCK! I found simply the information I already searched all over the place and simply couldn’t come across. What a perfect web-site.
vanheessen manager
I admit, I have not been on this web page in a long time… however it was another joy to see It is such an important topic and ignored by so many, even professionals. professionals. I thank you to help making people more aware of possible issues.
Full Hostorage Article
Thanks for the writeup. I definitely agree with what you are saying. I have been talking about this subject a lot lately with my brother so hopefully this will get him to see my point of view. Fingers crossed!
Thinking Light Articles
I can see that you are an expert at your field! I am launching a website soon, and your information will be very useful for me.. Thanks for all your help and wishing you all the success in your business.
Look for Packshot Solutions Here
This is a nice post and here in this post each part is well described. If the same question now asked to a common man that “who’s dependent on cars?” then the most common answer is we all the people are now-a-days mostly or we can say completely dependent on cars. We are now using our cars on our day to day life for many reasons like traveling and day to day work. So, as we are completely dependent on cars and if the car throws problem then it will be difficult for us to cope with it. So, its better to take proper maintenance of the car at proper interval of time to get better service from the car.
Mercedes Service Brentwood