Infidel Cowboy: PJ Takes On Mass Transit

Daily Roundup

OK Corral

Desperados

Straight Shooters

Heard at the Saloon

« Give It Up, Moonbats | Main | Hiatus »

PJ Takes On Mass Transit

My old friend from college, Transit Librarian, will not be amused.

There are just two problems with mass transit. Nobody uses it, and it costs like hell. Only 4% of Americans take public transportation to work. Even in cities they don't do it. Less than 25% of commuters in the New York metropolitan area use public transportation. Elsewhere it's far less--9.5% in San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose, 1.8% in Dallas-Fort Worth. As for total travel in urban parts of America--all the comings and goings for work, school, shopping, etc.--1.7 % of those trips are made on mass transit.

Then there is the cost, which is--obviously--$52 billion. Less obviously, there's all the money spent locally keeping local mass transit systems operating. The Heritage Foundation says, "There isn't a single light rail transit system in America in which fares paid by the passengers cover the cost of their own rides." Heritage cites the Minneapolis "Hiawatha" light rail line, soon to be completed with $107 million from the transportation bill. Heritage estimates that the total expense for each ride on the Hiawatha will be $19. Commuting to work will cost $8,550 a year. If the commuter is earning minimum wage, this leaves about $1,000 a year for food, shelter and clothing. Or, if the city picks up the tab, it could have leased a BMW X-5 SUV for the commuter at about the same price.

RTWT.

By infidel cowboy · 03.16.05 10:35PM ·

Comments

It seems that you, and PJ, have some outdated information here. The information PJ used was from November of 2002. The "Hiawatha" line that he refers to as almost completed has been up and running for over six months. It has been an outstanding success, with ridership up to 70% over expected numbers. In December, 19,900 people rode it on an average weekday. While I haven't been able to find the numbers, the average cost per ride is well below $19, and my understanding is that it will eventually be able to pay for itself, something the roads don't do.

Posted by: Kassie at March 19, 2005 02:21 PM

Well that is certainly good news regarding that particular light rail experiment. I think Mr. O'Rourke may be disincline to change his overall view of value vs. cost of mass transit, however.

Also, I would have to see some pretty hard evidence to believe that our system of roads in this country isn't "paying for itself." Especially since you would have to figure in the value to the economy of having an effective means of distributing workers, products, and buyers. We have the most efficient distribution systems in the world, and highways are the largest component in that system.

Posted by: infidel cowboy at March 19, 2005 03:51 PM

Technically speaking, hardly any roads pay for themselves. Toll roads are the only roads that attempt to levy a "per use" fee, and even that doesn't guarantee self-sufficiency. The cost to me of driving on 35W is the same as if I don't drive on 35W---the taxes are levied either way.

As for efficiency, no one is claiming that roads should disappear. First of all, buses need roads, at least until we have flying cars, a la "Back to the Future 2." Also, public transit doesn't make sense everywhere. That said, you're going to have a hard time convincing me that mass transit is a less effective means of transporting workers than cars.

If we're going to factor intangibles into our cost/benefit analysis, what about the costs of choosing cars over mass transit, including increased pollution and increased car accidents. There are also benefits of mass transit, namely shorter commute times. If everyone who worked in downtown Minneapolis came in by bus or train, the decrease in commute times would shrink dramatically. This would lead to either increased productivity and/or increased quality of life.

Posted by: Andy at March 22, 2005 03:16 PM