Stimulus Plan nobody is talking about

[burlesona]

People spend a lot of time arguing about whether or not transit is worth the money, whether or not the passenger mile cost is less etc. When you compare the total cost of car ownership though, this is a no-brainer...

This, from http://neohouston.wordpress.com

Cars are expensive. AAA says:

Ever wonder how much you're really paying to drive your car every year?

$9,641

That's how much a person driving a medium sedan 15,000 miles a year can expect to pay, excluding loan payments.

In coming up with the estimates below, AAA figures in average fuel, routine maintenance, tires, insurance, license and registration, loan finance charges and depreciation costs. Fuel prices are based on late-2006 national averages.

AAA has been conducting this annual analysis since 1950. That year, driving a car 10,000 miles annually cost 9 cents a mile, and gasoline sold for 27 cents per gallon.

That's for one car.

Consider that about 7% of US households EARN LESS THAN $10,000 PER YEAR. Another 17% make between $10,000 and $25,000 per year, for a total of about 24% of the US earning less than $25,000 per year.

The median household income in the US is about $50,000, and the average cost to own two cars (so Mom and Dad can both be adults) is about $20,000.

Moreover, that money is COMPLETELY GONE. It's invested in a rapidly depreciating asset that literally burns your money out the tail pipe. People who aren't chained to the machine can reap a huge financial benefit. This report, released last week, estimates that people using public transit to commute to and from work are saving about $9,500 a year, nationwide.

People in a transit-oriented could be investing their money in PROPERTY. Acquiring appreciating or stable long term investments is the key to wealth accumulation. Cars are basically anti-wealth machines.

Now, for those of you who argue about what transit costs per passenger, and so on and so forth, I have a question for you: WHO CARES???

The current US transportation system requires citizens to pay a fortune and risk their lives each day, become fully dependent on others for mobility, or withdraw to the margins of society.

THAT is why we need a multi-modal transportation system. THAT is why the cost per passenger mile is a load of crock.

If we could transition every city in America to a multi-modal transportation system where the average family could reasonably choose to own only ONE car instead of TWO, we would be pumping about $10,000 per year per family into the economy. Now *THAT'S* a stimulus package!

[TexasVines]

just a brief glance over that steaming pile of dung tells me that someone somewhere on the tax payers dime sat around and took a bunch of numbers and tried to cram them into something to fit their agenda

[Texas Wahoo]

I recently started taking the DC Metro to work each day because it costs so much to park in downtown DC. However, I don't see how the savings can be that high in a place like Houston or Dallas where parking is available downtown for much less. On some quick calculations, if I pay $4 a day to take the Metro back and forth from work, I'm looking at about $1000 in metro fees just for my commute. That doesn't count any other trips I might make, like going to dinner or to the store or out on weekends. I just don't see the big benefit except in a place where parking is hundreds of dollars a month.

[TheNiche]

People spend a lot of time arguing about whether or not transit is worth the money, whether or not the passenger mile cost is less etc. When you compare the total cost of car ownership though, this is a no-brainer...

This, from http://neohouston.wordpress.com

Cars are expensive. AAA says:

Ever wonder how much you're really paying to drive your car every year?

$9,641

That's how much a person driving a medium sedan 15,000 miles a year can expect to pay, excluding loan payments.

In coming up with the estimates below, AAA figures in average fuel, routine maintenance, tires, insurance, license and registration, loan finance charges and depreciation costs. Fuel prices are based on late-2006 national averages.

AAA has been conducting this annual analysis since 1950. That year, driving a car 10,000 miles annually cost 9 cents a mile, and gasoline sold for 27 cents per gallon.

That's for one car.

Consider that about 7% of US households EARN LESS THAN $10,000 PER YEAR. Another 17% make between $10,000 and $25,000 per year, for a total of about 24% of the US earning less than $25,000 per year.

The median household income in the US is about $50,000, and the average cost to own two cars (so Mom and Dad can both be adults) is about $20,000.

Moreover, that money is COMPLETELY GONE. It's invested in a rapidly depreciating asset that literally burns your money out the tail pipe. People who aren't chained to the machine can reap a huge financial benefit. This report, released last week, estimates that people using public transit to commute to and from work are saving about $9,500 a year, nationwide.

People in a transit-oriented could be investing their money in PROPERTY. Acquiring appreciating or stable long term investments is the key to wealth accumulation. Cars are basically anti-wealth machines.

Now, for those of you who argue about what transit costs per passenger, and so on and so forth, I have a question for you: WHO CARES???

The current US transportation system requires citizens to pay a fortune and risk their lives each day, become fully dependent on others for mobility, or withdraw to the margins of society.

THAT is why we need a multi-modal transportation system. THAT is why the cost per passenger mile is a load of crock.

If we could transition every city in America to a multi-modal transportation system where the average family could reasonably choose to own only ONE car instead of TWO, we would be pumping about $10,000 per year per family into the economy. Now *THAT'S* a stimulus package!

Transportation is expensive. I can agree with that. Whether cars or busses or light rail or commuter rail or subway, it all has to be paid for, it all will depreciate, it all will require maintenance, and it all will ultimately require replacement. An appropriate evaluation of transporation alternatives looks at the total social costs (not private costs) of each. And I don't buy for a second that the median cost of a car is about the same as the savings from using transit. Transit simply is not free or even remotely close to it. Moveover, cities with extensive transit have higher average commute times; so where there may be a fiscal savings (and that is not to say that there actually is), there is an offseting loss of leisure or working time.

Also, cars are expensive, but so is overpaying for housing, especially when comparing the cost of a new single-family home as compared to a new apartment of the same size within walking distance of a major employment center. Apples-to-apples comparisons are not the transit propagandist's friend.

But I do agree with you that the passenger/mile figure is woefully inadequate. It totally fails to account for the opportunity cost of a rider's time, and thus makes most forms of transit appear more beneficial than they actually are...while placing true forms of rapid transit--albeit more expensive--at a distinct disadvantage.

[ihop]

Houston has 1/2 the pop density of Los Angeles. With people so spread out, and people who live near each other rarely commuting to the same areas, public transit becomes much more logistically complex. I think lots of the comparisons of Houston to other cities neglect this fact.

[desirous]

Opportunity cost isn't that bad once you balance out the positive with the negative. The flip side of longer commute times is opportunity to rest, read, or work; and the reduction in stress from driving in traffic.

Transit is great when applied correctly. It's impossible to wean a city like Houston off automobiles, nor is that a desirable outcome.

[RedScare]

I recently started taking the DC Metro to work each day because it costs so much to park in downtown DC. However, I don't see how the savings can be that high in a place like Houston or Dallas where parking is available downtown for much less. On some quick calculations, if I pay $4 a day to take the Metro back and forth from work, I'm looking at about $1000 in metro fees just for my commute. That doesn't count any other trips I might make, like going to dinner or to the store or out on weekends. I just don't see the big benefit except in a place where parking is hundreds of dollars a month.

Did I miss something here? $4 a day is $1000 a YEAR, versus $9700 a year for an automobile, and you DON'T see the benefit?

[desirous]

Let's not forget our tax money going toward road maintenance. Roads are subsidized just like transit, except the bill's a lot higher. I never understood pro-highway people that argue on a tax basis... concrete is expensive.

[Montrose1100]

Houston has 1/2 the pop density of Los Angeles. With people so spread out, and people who live near each other rarely commuting to the same areas, public transit becomes much more logistically complex. I think lots of the comparisons of Houston to other cities neglect this fact.

Well Los Angeles is not Spoke-Shaped...

[desirous]

Well Los Angeles is not Spoke-Shaped...

Doesn't Downtown and Uptown account for 45% of Houston's office space? Los Angeles is a mess, and that's not even counting Orange County.

Speaking of spoke-shaped cities, downtown Chicago has fully half of the metro area's office space. In fact, the city proper discourages office development anywhere else. That explains the over 20 rail lines and 200 stations that serve the CBD there. Very efficient.

Edited September 27, 2008 by desirous

[TheNiche]

Doesn't Downtown and Uptown account for 45% of Houston's office space? Los Angeles is a mess, and that's not even counting Orange County.

Speaking of spoke-shaped cities, downtown Chicago has fully half of the metro area's office space. In fact, the city proper discourages office development anywhere else. That explains the over 20 rail lines and 200 stations that serve the CBD there. Very efficient.

53.3% of regional office space in Chicago is in its Central Business District according to Grubb & Ellis. The land area of their CBD is approx. 2.3 miles x 1.6 miles, or 3.68 square miles. The density of office space is about 32.7 million square feet per square mile of land area.

In comparison, 21.8% of regional office space in Houston is in the Central Business District according to Grubb & Ellis. The land area of the CBD is approx. 1.2 miles x 1.2 miles, or 1.44 square miles. The density of office space is about 24.7 million square feet per square mile of land area. I'm very hesitant to include the Galleria/Riverway areas, as they are over five miles away and formed in a such a way as that a distinct and seperate entity is implied.

But I don't really like looking to Chicago for comparisons, anyway. Their urban form is the legacy of 19th century technology. We really are more comparable in many ways to Los Angeles...only we have the advantage of having no mountains or other geographic impediments to travel. As a result we have more straight lines and direct routes. Also, the more that we fill in our freeway plan, the more it really looks like a jumbled grid than a hub and spoke.

[burlesona]

Did I miss something here? $4 a day is $1000 a YEAR, versus $9700 a year for an automobile, and you DON'T see the benefit?

Well said.