Passenger Trains > Save Money-Use Public Transportation

There is a report at boston.com that the American Public Transportation Association has published a survey that lists the annual savings for folks who use commuter trains and other forms of public transit. The average saving in the Boston area is more $12,600. The report can be found at http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2009/05/transit_ridersh.html. The report lists 20 major US cities.

Surely that kind of report can be used to prove a cost-benefit analysis with think about highways versus commuter rail.

Marty Harrison
Knob Noster, MO

There's way too little information in that text-byte. But first of all, it's a self-serving report produced by APTA. With that in mind, I should think that those kinds of savings could be had only if one were to avoid having to purchase an auto, although maybe gas and parking could cost $1,000/month over and above the cost of a monthly transit pass? I find that one a bit hard to swallow...

You must have a personal vehicle. Public transit typically prohibits canine members of the family from riding. We travel as a family unit.

stash Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You must have a personal vehicle. Public transit
> typically prohibits canine members of the family
> from riding. We travel as a family unit.

Another good thing about cats. They don't tear up the house when the family leaves to go shopping without them.

Anyway, for a while this morning, the story about this APTA survey was positioned on boston.com immediately above a story about a 19-year-old getting shot in the head while waiting at a bus stop in one of Boston's rougher neighborhoods. Obviously somebody at the Globe noticed this unfortunate juxtaposition because it didn't stay that way for very long....

I've used public transit in Boston, New York, and San Francisco (top 3 cities in savings in the article), and I like them, because they are convenient, which I think is the keyword, not cost-savings. I also like Seattle, Portland, and San Diego.

The article is too brief to be convincing, in my opinion. Why not be more sleazy and do a study on how using public transit will help you lose weight? You definitely got to walk more, and there are stairs to climb, and in a crowded bus or train, you'd be standing a lot. That'll get people signed up, even if this claim is accurate. :-)

Boston, New York and San Francisco have some of the highest taxes, which are needed to subsidize transit systems. In other words save money and have a rich guy pay for your ride.

With all the recent reports of transit systems not being able to meet their operating costs and needing billions in replacement equipment, with no idea where to get the money, the question must be asked, is transit sustainable?

OliveHeights Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Boston, New York and San Francisco have some of
> the highest taxes, which are needed to subsidize
> transit systems. In other words save money and
> have a rich guy pay for your ride.
>
> With all the recent reports of transit systems not
> being able to meet their operating costs and
> needing billions in replacement equipment, with no
> idea where to get the money, the question must be
> asked, is transit sustainable?


Transit is more sustainable than private vehicle transport.....especially in the larger cities.

Also, there are many ways to look at high taxes. Sure, you get to initially keep more money in your paycheck with lower taxes, but then there are many costs that are classifed as "personal choice" by lower-taxes arguments that are not REALLY personal choice.....

cchan006 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> The article is too brief to be convincing, in my
> opinion. Why not be more sleazy and do a study on
> how using public transit will help you lose
> weight? You definitely got to walk more, and there
> are stairs to climb, and in a crowded bus or
> train, you'd be standing a lot. That'll get people
> signed up, even if this claim is accurate. :-)


You're not as far off the field as you might think.

Personal experience.....in the fall of 2003, I studied abroad in Paris, France for approx. four months. Walked around a lot, took the Metro and the RER (regional rail) for errands and sightseeing (I lived within walking distance of the university), and wound up eating at fast-food places (McD's and the French-equivalent called "Quick") on average two times a week (as comparison, I don't remember the last time I had a McDonald's burger Stateside).

Came back about 15-20 pounds down......

ChS7-321 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Transit is more sustainable than private vehicle
> transport.....especially in the larger cities.

I would say it's not just sustainable, but necessary in larger cities.

"The rich" who actually earn their money - managers and executives who run businesses with people who work for them (as opposed to people who cry for tax payer subsidized bailout money or simply whine in front of a radio mic all day) - need workers to come to work. I'm surprised no study has been published recently to indicate how much of the tax dollars help workers commute. That's a pretty good ROI, if a tax can keep their businesses running...

Would businesses and "the rich" stop subsidizing public transit, but instead have "company housing" so the workers don't need to commute? Or provide "company vehicles" to every employee who live too far away? That's a different view on "cost savings", especially since the alternatives seem more expensive, and more feudal.

For me, a rough estimate of what I would pay in incremental costs to drive to work is $2750 per year, including just gas ($1300) and parking ($1450), for a 60-mile commute distance roundtrip.

My transit cost, including associated driving, is about $1100 per year.

Thus, for me personally, this is a savings of about $1650. Enough for a ticket to Europe each year.

Actual savings are substantially higher, of course, since my vehicle would wear out faster. Over the last 10 years, I would have driven my vehicle about 108,000 extra miles, rather than the 153,000 miles I actually drove it. So, the cost of a new vehicle acquisition that was avoided needs to be costed out and added to the cost of driving to work. That could partly be offset by, say, acquiring a car getting 40mpg rather than 20mpg, which would be more necessary with this type of commute. Numbers will be different for those who live close to work, such as people who can walk to work.

But, in any case, I'm happy to get to Europe once a year for free, while others enjoy sitting in traffic.

reindeerflame Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> For me, a rough estimate of what I would pay in
> incremental costs to drive to work is $2750 per
> year, including just gas ($1300) and parking
> ($1450), for a 60-mile commute distance
> roundtrip.
>
> My transit cost, including associated driving, is
> about $1100 per year.
>
> Thus, for me personally, this is a savings of
> about $1650. Enough for a ticket to Europe each
> year.
>
> Actual savings are substantially higher, of
> course, since my vehicle would wear out faster.
> Over the last 10 years, I would have driven my
> vehicle about 108,000 extra miles, rather than the
> 153,000 miles I actually drove it. So, the cost
> of a new vehicle acquisition that was avoided
> needs to be costed out and added to the cost of
> driving to work. That could partly be offset by,
> say, acquiring a car getting 40mpg rather than
> 20mpg, which would be more necessary with this
> type of commute. Numbers will be different for
> those who live close to work, such as people who
> can walk to work.
>
> But, in any case, I'm happy to get to Europe once
> a year for free, while others enjoy sitting in
> traffic.

No doubt transit is cheaper for people that can use it. What are the side effects of the high taxes required to sustain operations and rebuild old systems? For instance, places like Boston, Philadelphia and Chicago over the past 50 years have had huge drops in population while lower tax cities in the South have had huge increases in population. The exception to the population exodus from high tax places would be California.

I suspect that a fair amount of the population losses in the Eastern cities were people that cared about the percentage of income they were giving up for taxes. Low income folks don't worry about taxes as much. I'm pretty sure reindeer lives in California, as I used to. The amount of state income tax I saved last year by not living in California was more than a lifetime worth of his yearly transit savings.

I would guess in a city like New York it would cost at least $50 a day to park your car, yet folks are getting their shorts in a wad over a 25 cent increase in subway fares. Rather than cut back on service, why not raise the fares to $5 or even $10 to help offset lower tax revenues and save the system. The users would still be saving money, wouldn't they?

My guess is that the budget shortfalls we are seeing in transit everywhere this year are going to be even bigger next year.

OliveHeights Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> No doubt transit is cheaper for people that can
> use it. What are the side effects of the high
> taxes required to sustain operations and rebuild
> old systems? For instance, places like Boston,
> Philadelphia and Chicago over the past 50 years
> have had huge drops in population while lower tax
> cities in the South have had huge increases in
> population. The exception to the population
> exodus from high tax places would be California.

It's not just about higher vs lower taxes.....in fact taxes are a small part of it It's also about fundamental changes in the economy and society. Why did the Silicon Valley develop in California? Could the fact that local universities had stronger technology programs than the rest of the country have something to do with it?

Did higher taxes contribute to the declining coal and steel industries which supported the NE? Or was it other fundamental shifts?

Plus low costs of living in the South and West don't necessarily relate to taxes. It would not hurt to remember what I said in an earlier post about costs which are presented as "personal choice", but are not REALLY personal choice.



> I suspect that a fair amount of the population
> losses in the Eastern cities were people that
> cared about the percentage of income they were
> giving up for taxes. Low income folks don't worry
> about taxes as much. I'm pretty sure reindeer
> lives in California, as I used to. The amount of
> state income tax I saved last year by not living
> in California was more than a lifetime worth of
> his yearly transit savings.
>
> I would guess in a city like New York it would
> cost at least $50 a day to park your car, yet
> folks are getting their shorts in a wad over a 25
> cent increase in subway fares. Rather than cut
> back on service, why not raise the fares to $5 or
> even $10 to help offset lower tax revenues and
> save the system. The users would still be saving
> money, wouldn't they?

Your cost analysis is way out of the ballpark. Parking in Manhattan does not cost $50 per day. Also, how would the poorer folk afford such ridiculous $5-10 fares?

And the people who have cars? Well, the will start to use them, and then the city would eventually come to a halt as Eastern cities are not built for that.

$5-10 would not close the budget shortfalls as the ridership would fall, and, in fact, might make that shortfall bigger.

Besides saving money, it's also important to have a city that functions, and places like New York, Philadelphia, Chicago, and Boston would probably not function without an accessible mass transit system.

ChS7-321 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Also, how would the poorer folk afford such
> ridiculous $5-10 fares?

Ridiculous? only because they are ridiculously low now. What does it cost to park in NYC, or take a cab?

> Besides saving money, it's also important to have
> a city that functions, and places like New York,
> Philadelphia, Chicago, and Boston would probably
> not function without an accessible mass transit
> system.

Depends on your definition of functional. A measure of functionality would be growth or loss of population. I suspect the folks that voted with their feet didn't think those places they left were functioning. Often the jobs follow the people out of town for greener pastures.

I agree, we can't pave over everything to build highways. However it seems that transit does not move as many people as highways and it bears the burden of not only paying for the roadway but also the vehicles and the people to operate and repair them. At least highway users are participatory payers in that mode of transportation. At one time a 20% farebox recovery looked good but today with high replacement costs for equipment the old financing methods won't cover the costs. In the short run we are just going to print money but that can't go on forever.

OliveHeights Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ChS7-321 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Also, how would the poorer folk afford such
> > ridiculous $5-10 fares?
>
> Ridiculous? only because they are ridiculously low
> now. What does it cost to park in NYC, or take a
> cab?

$2 (soon to be $2.20) to take a city subway or a bus is NOT ridiculously low, and I'm using the rest of the Western world as my metric.

> > Besides saving money, it's also important to
> have
> > a city that functions, and places like New
> York,
> > Philadelphia, Chicago, and Boston would
> probably
> > not function without an accessible mass transit
> > system.
>
> Depends on your definition of functional. A
> measure of functionality would be growth or loss
> of population. I suspect the folks that voted
> with their feet didn't think those places they
> left were functioning. Often the jobs follow the
> people out of town for greener pastures.

A city that's at a standstill is not functional, and without mass transit, cities such as NYC/Philly/Boston/Washington/Chicago would come to a standstill with highway traffic jams.

As to population shifts, well, there are many reasons for that. However, it would also be apt to point out that NYC added like 400,000 people 1990-2000, so make your own conclusions.

At one
> time a 20% farebox recovery looked good but today
> with high replacement costs for equipment the old
> financing methods won't cover the costs. In the
> short run we are just going to print money but
> that can't go on forever.

What are you talking about? Most of the Northeastern systems, AFAIK, do in the 50-60% farebox recovery range.....