Public Transportation, what are the real numbers?
Public Transportation, what's it's real cost to the commuting public? There are currently funds within the Department of Transportation dedicated to be used to repair, maintain and build our roads and highways and provide public transport. What's the "right mix" of those funds that should be used for Public Transportation vs. our roads?
Some have developed plans to build a light rail system, trolley or building the infrastructure to support them, but has anyone really looked at the numbers with regards to the operating costs of a public system as compared to our cars and SUVs? Let's, for now, forget about the capital costs to build and start up a new system, let's just look at operating costs...Operating costs are long term, ongoing costs that "someone" must spend every day we commute from one point to another.
The best metric for measuring those costs are how much does it cost to move one person one mile. I had a chance meeting with a retired IBM manufacturing analyst (who's job it was to squeeze the most out of a Dollar) that has done some work in this area and he was kind enough to provide me with data and his sources of data that I think is worth sharing here.
This data comes from the Urban Transport Fact book that draws from National Transportation data, US Census data, National transit data and from the American Public Transportation Association.
It's important to remember that these numbers are operating costs only and the data is from 2001, as this was the most recent data that was available for both Public Transportation systems and for automobile operating expenses. If you go to the Fact Book, you will find that operating costs are pretty stable for cars up through about 2004.
There are a number of cities with Public Transportation systems operating costs listed in the Fact Book, but I picked some that I have personally either seen, used or have been briefed on their operations and compared those operating costs to Boise's system (in 2001).
Costs per passenger mile is an important metric. It shows just how much each passenger should expect to pay (or subsidies that would be required) for 1 mile travelled. The data comparison clearly shows that in 2001 the Boise system costs tax payers and riders about 89 cents per mile each passenger travelled. If those same folks would have ridden in a car, their operating costs per mile would have been 1/4 of that cost!
The taxpayers of Idaho have infrastructure investments today that need maintained (our roads) that our buses, taxis and van pools currently use to move those that would prefer or need access to public transport. Every taxpayer Dollar spent on infrastructure other than our current road system would be used to support a system that has an operating cost per passenger mile 4 times that of cars.
Obviously, the data above does not address any environmental or social issues associated with transport costs of every passenger per mile, but all of these metrics should be demanded prior to investment into any Public Transit system to ensure those costs "pencil out" or have a positive return on investment for the Taxpayers of our state. The Fact Book does address many of these issues as well, but I've not the room here to get into them.
As an example; currently the #42 "Intercounty Bus Fare" for the trip from Nampa to Boise (one way) is $2.00. Lets say that this one way trip is (conservatively) a 20 mile trip. The passenger payment per passenger mile works out to 10 cents per passenger mile.
Using the old 2001 figures of Boise operating costs of 89 cents per passenger mile (when fuel costs were almost half of what they are today) indicates that "someone" besides the rider is paying (or subsidizing) 79 cents per mile per passenger on that route, or $15.80 per rider!
Who do you think that might be Mr. and Ms. Taxpayer?
I would encourage you to look at the Fact Book data and ask some questions of our local leaders and those focused on increasing taxes to build out our Public Transport infrastructure. Do they understand what are the true costs of that infrastructure and the ongoing operating costs PER PASSENGER MILE are going to be? Can they supply the data to the taxpayer comparing those costs to what we have invested today and what the expected future costs will be?
Do we have the population density to support such a system? Would we be smarter investing more in our current infrastructure of roads? How about in some sort of voucher system that would allow people, that really need public transportation, that could be used with a taxi? There are too many questions that are not being asked, too many statements focusing our eyes away from the "card up the sleeve"...
There is no doubt that we could all do better in ensuring we carpool or share a ride when we can, these are the things that drive down the automobile operating costs per passenger mile for all of us. If you look around you on I-84 coming into town, you will see too many of us not sharing a ride, but do we want to increase our taxes as punishment? Will this change our behavior? Are we going to have to invest in our roads anyway?
At the same time we are seeing our traffic backing up because we are not considering these ride sharing options, we are seeing and hearing from some, with interests other than economically resolving these issues, recommending that we increase our taxes to build an infrastructure that will cost us more to operate than what we currently spend, while at the same time supporting only a minority of commuters.
Do we need to plan for our future density, of course, but the numbers clearly show we are not ready for anything other than a more economical bus system.
A cute Trolley or Light Rail line might be a really "sexy" thing for the Treasure Valley to have, but is the "juice worth the squeeze" for the taxpayers?
What are your thoughts?
Posts
7 comments:
Dear Mr. Hagedorn:
I found your blog from a link on the Statesman website.
You have made some interesting and compelling arguments, ostensibly against the notion of expanding the public transportation system.
I'm curious about one thing. (There's probably an answer at the Urban Transport Fact Book that you cite, but since you're citing it, you probably know without checking.) Is that 21-cents-per-mile for auto/SUV travel the number for a vehicle operating at its design capacity, or for people driving ALONE from place-to-place?
Since probably 90 percent of our area's cars and SUVs are single-occupant, the single-occupant vehicle expense would certainly be the most realistic number, for comparison purposes. Wouldn't you agree?
I'm speculating 21-cents-per-mile is for a vehicle with at least 2 people on board.
After all, way back in 1995, the AAA (hardly an anti-car organization!) said it cost 41.2 cents per mile to operate a private motor vehicle. (In 2004, they said it cost $8410/year to own and operate a car... and that's when gas was $1.83/gallon.)
Or... consider that the IRS allows a 50.2 cents-per-mile (in 2008) deducation for private vehicle use in employer business.
However... as you state in your blog, even if the numbers are accurate, they are "... operating costs only and the data is from 2001." Golly, I bet it hasn't gotten much more expensive to drive a car in the last 6 years, huh? (Nudge-nudge, wink-wink)
I'm a lifelong (54 years) Boise resident. And for the last 22 of those years, I've been a dedicated bicycle commuter. The last time I drove a car to work (in downtown Boise) was September, 1997. (And since 1986, it has been a rarity.)
(Now, don't get me wrong. We have a car; the wife drives it mostly, but it's readily available for family transportation, and for me to move big and unwieldy stuff around. And I've got nothing against cars - they have their place.)
My bike commute is about 14 minutes, from door to door. It rarely varies.
I chose my dwelling-place very deliberately. I'd never live where my only transportation option to my 5-day-a-week destination is single-occupant motor vehicle.
In that respect, I probably differ from many, or perhaps most, of your constituents out there in Meridian. They've chosen to live in Suburbia and deal with a commute at least every weekday. There are probably many of them who don't go anywhere except by car.
I'm good with that.
I s'pose I can live with the gridlock they create - I don't have to deal with it very often. I can live with the demand they are contributing to the supply/demand curve, causing my fuel cost to go up along with their own. I guess I can live with my former "country lane" favorite bike rides - many out Meridian way and beyond - now going through seas of identical cracker-box rooftops.
My only real complaint is... as a fellow citizen, I have to breathe the same air! And they are polluting our air! (It's not just their air... it's mine, too! We have to share it.) And as you stated, your blog entry is about "operating costs only." You are not addressing the little issue of our deteriorating air quality.
And it's getting worse. Last year, we had 120 "yellow" air quality days and 10 "orange" days. (By comparison, 2006 had 73 yellow days and 4 orange days, 2005 had fewer, 2004 fewer than that, and so on.)
Do your constituents have a "right" to pollute the air I breathe?
Is it worth anything to try to preserve our air quality? (Or other quality-of-life issues that are threatened by burgeoning numbers of vehicles on our overcrowded roadways? I'm sure we know how those folks along Ustick Road feel, about losing their front yards to another traffic lane.)
I'm not necessarily in favor of expanding our public transit system. But it deserves looking at. (And I'm EXTREMELY skeptical, as are you, about a cute/sexy trolley or light rail, at least for 20 years. The corridor should be preserved.) But to consider ONLY the supposed cost of transporting one passenger one mile when making such decisions seems rather simplistic to me, if you want to be objective and open-minded.
Thanks.
Steve Hulme, Boise
(AKA Bikeboy, AKA The Bike Nazi)
The number sighted for the operation of a car at $.22 per passenger mile was the National Average of miles driven and the number of folks that were carried during those miles.
Like you, I do doubt that this number is the same today, however, fuel costs have increased for all transportation so I would think that it would also be reflected within our current system today as well. Even the IRS number for business to deduct is now $.505 per mile (but that number does not account for passengers), however, one must agree that even that number is still below our Public Transport costs.
I received an email last night from an analyst with regards to the 2006 data of our TV program. Example: The operating costs reported for Valley Transit (capital cost not included) for 2006 was $7,139,851. The income from fares was $706,326.
So we have some work to do when we are only collecting less than 10% of the cost of transit while servicing such a small percentage of the folks that are causing our traffic and air quality issues. One would think that with such low fares (less than the cost of the operation of a car) we woul have a greater use of our system, but even that extreamly low cost is not influencing more participation.
My point here is, the increase in air quality and reduction in congrestion do have a value associated with each of those issues, but is that value worth the 90% that the taxpayers pay for our current system? Are there other, smarter investments we can or should make that would bring us a greater return towards those goals?
It's a matter of planning and balance and getting the most for our taxpayer dollar to meet our goals... People need to be informed so we all make good decisions and buy into and support those decisions to meet the requirements that we all want resolved.
Don't miss understand my comments as being pro or con Public Transportation, I do believe that we must have transportation where it makes sense and provide service to those that need that service. We must plan for our future desities, however, we must educate the public in the real costs of what we are going to choose.
Thanks for your comments, I appreciate your input.
Cheers,
Marv
Rep.Hagedorn,
Have you tried to ride the bus in the Treasure Valley?
When we moved to Meridian we considered it, but where are the stops? Where is the schedule? What are the routes? How do we stay out of the elements while waiting for the phantom ride?
Deliberately poorly designed to prove mass transit doesn't work?
Certainly not effective to move people from Point A to Point B.
By incorporating counties with jobsites, college campuses, medical and entertainment locations it would make sense to offer multiple methods and schedules and allow Idahoans public mass transit.
The cents would follow a common sense development of mass transit.
Please note that the Fact Book you reference in your comments is published by Wendell Cox Consultancy, which is known to be used as bias against public transit. Mr. Cox is a paid consultant for the American Highways Users Alliance, a group that lobbies for more highways.
I am not surprised that the Fact Book shows false statistics, I am surprised that you are trying to use their methodolgy to keep Idaho on a downward spiral for our quality of living in this great state.
I appreciate your comments more than you know. It's very frustrating for those of us in Meridian (home of The Treasure Valley Transit Authority by the way) that we are not included in the bus transit system. We have no stops, we have no buses, Meridian is not included in the bus plan.
I understand your frustration with the data from the Fact Book, but the data is from sources that are non biased sources. Attacks on the publisher might or might not be in order, however, the data stands on it's own. Ask the Treasure Valley Transit Authority for what they spent last year (total budget), how many passengers they transported and over how many miles. That's the numbers we should really be interested in seeing to see where we should be putting our tax dollars.
It currently costs less to drive a car than ride a bus by 4 times. There is value in mass transit as I've said before including air quality and a slight reduction in congestion, but is it worth 4 times the cost of driving? Might we be better fixing our current infrustructure with those funds now used for buses?
Sure there's a bus in Meridian. I drove to BSU West to pick up the bus from Nampa to BSU downtown, and it stopped at Gold's Gym in Meridian. I agree that it is not well publicized; I could have been taking that route for months if I'd known.
I'd really want to know what components are in the Urban Transport Fact Book. People love to claim that public transit has to be "subsidized," but that's because the subsidies in the highway system -- from building cars, to fueling them, to maintaining them, to building and maintaining roads for them -- are so built-in to the system that we don't even think of them as subsidies any more.
Lane Beattie, the head of the Salt Lake City Chamber of Commerce -- which spearheaded a wildly successful public transit system -- said in Boise last week that of course public transit doesn't pay for itself -- but neither do roads, airports, and many other things that we have because they are considered a requirement for a metro area of a certain size.
Moreover, keep in mind that we'll *lose* a lot of those subsidies, such as federal highway funds, if we fail to achieve attainment in air quality, which we are perilously close to doing.
Do those figures you cite count the value of people's time? When I rode a bus, I got an extra two hours of time a day. Multiply that by everyone on the bus, by however many buses there were. Contrast that with the amount of time people spend stuck in their cars on the road in traffic.
Also keep in mind that public transit reduces the need to build and maintain new highways. Beattie said their public transit system was as effective as a new highway lane. How much are we paying to add a lane on I-84 between Caldwell and Meridian?
I've met with and visited the Salt Lake Transit Autority and Lane Beattie last summer on a trip to see their system and learn how it was funded.
I would question your definition of "wildly successful". If you mean some folks use it, yes that's true, however, at what cost?
Their $2 Billion Dollar (+) system would have built many lanes of roads and purchased a ton of easements as well.
Their local option taxes are from a valley with a density of people at 2 million. (taxes are from $0.005 to $0.0075 from this population).
It should be noted that the Idaho entire state population is only 1.4 million.
I have also met with members of the Utah State Legislature and they too are wondering how they are going to pay for ongoing infrastructure costs of this system. They struggle with taking away highway maint and construction Dollars to pay for a system that services a minority of it's transportation users.
I would suggest that you find some numbers and let's look at them. A key metric is cost per passenger mile... let's use that as a basis for comparison. I'm open to looking at real numbers.
Thanks,
Marv
Hi Marv -
Just read the public transporation blog and comments, and have a few comments of my own...
Of the data from the Public Transportation Fact Book, it appears there is a general trend toward decreased per-mile cost as total system passenger miles go up. What is behind this trend?
I've got to believe the single biggest driver is system utilization (e.g.- % of system capacity). Increases in utilization drive down cost per mile proportionally. To decrease cost-per-mile with limited budget, perhaps we should better understand our existing system utilization and the ways in which we can maximize it.
Other comments on cost:
- I don't agree with the $0.21 average cost/mile figure...even when viewed from a 2001 perspective. Business and the IRS were considering transportaion costs to be in excess of $0.35/mile even in 2001.
- Costs/mile for individual drivers only consider the operating cost of the vehicle. If individual drivers were paid salaries and benefits (as professional drivers), the costs would likely be much higher.
- As mentioned in other comments, many transportation costs are "hidden" (or at least can't be subjected to "apples to apples" comparisons). As a result, the use of "data" can be tricky.
I am not a regular user of public transportation, and likely will not be unless the cost-benefit equation is altered significantly.
> Operating costs for my personal vehicle would need to rise significantly.
> The benefit would need to be in terms of greater public transport flexibility and door-to-door speed.
Boise example: Why walk a mile to catch a once-an-hour bus that takes an hour to get me within a walking mile (or more) of my destination, which is only 20 minutes away via personal transportation?
Washington D.C. or London (two cities I have lived in) example: Catch public transport within a city block that gets me to most any destination within 15 miles of the city center in +/-25% of the travel time in a personal vehicle, in an environment where the cost of owning and operating a personal vehicle (fuel prices, parking cost/availability, extreme congestion) is very high. Public transport looks like a pretty good option in these places, and indeed has very high rates of utilization.
Possible rules of thumb (or pearls of common sense)...
- Public transportation is most cost effective at high rates of utilization.
- Highest rates of utilization typically occur in high denisty areas.
- Potential riders are most likely to utilize public transport options when door-to-door travel times are comparable to private alternatives.
My suggestions:
1) Focus on increasing utilization of the existing system. Forget the "sexy" options, and find a way to make bus transportation "cool".
2) Make the existing system more rider-friendly (increased frequency, expanded hours).
3) Target commuters specifically when working to increase utillization. These "professional" users will be the backbone of the on-going revenue screen for the system.
4) Focus public transportation planning toward high density areas. (Boise-Meridian-Nampa-Eagle and their primary transportation corridors)
5) Don't get too hung up on trying to compare cost/mile between private and public transport options (too many clouding factors). Instead focus on relentlessly decreasing the cost/mile of public transportation (How does Boise achieve Honolulu's cost structure?).
Post a Comment