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?

Global Climate Change... Could your "Carbon Footprint" be off the hook?

Using the Internet that Al Gore "created", I ran across an interesting series of well founded articles on "Global Climate Change" completed by Dr. R. Tmothy Patterson, a professor and director of the Ottawa-Carleton Geoscience Center, Department of Earth Sciences at Carleton University in Canada.

Canada is extremely interested in forecasting what the weather is going to do with regards to Canada's ability to feed their population through their national focus on farming and providing for themselves (self sufficiency). Much of Canada's farming belt is very close to the freezeline where farming just won't exist were that freezeline move too far south.

Dr. Patterson has taken many studies based on recent scientific studies performed since 2002 and put together a time line of climate change with overlapping information based on findings from studies showing why and when the climate changed in history.

The outcome of this multi-study overlay is very interesting, here is a paragraph out of some very easy reading of his summary:

"In a series of groundbreaking scientific papers starting in 2002, Veizer, Shaviv, Carslaw, and most recently Svensmark et al., have collectively demonstrated that as the output of the sun varies, and with it, our star's protective solar wind, varying amounts of galactic cosmic rays from deep space are able to enter our solar system and penetrate the Earth's atmosphere. These cosmic rays enhance cloud formation which, overall, has a cooling effect on the planet. When the sun's energy output is greater, not only does the Earth warm slightly due to direct solar heating, but the stronger solar wind generated during these "high sun" periods blocks many of the cosmic rays from entering our atmosphere. Cloud cover decreases and the Earth warms still more."

For the full summary of the study, click here: Read the Sunspots... (it's a quick and easy read with all the links available to the a series of articles and studies if you want to continue to dig into the results to validate the study)

Does this mean the "Hummer" off the hook? Well, it's very possible since this overlay of studies also explains why climate change on Mars seems to correlate to the sun's output of solar winds and the Earth's climate changes as well. Don't take this out of context, it's not saying it's going to solve the cost of a barrel of oil or resolve the fact that "change" happens, but it is an excellent explanation of what is happening to our planet and why. Leaders have an obligation to understand factual information to make good decisions for their constituents, regardless being business or government.

I would hope that Al and his followers would use his new invention (the Internet) to update his "the science is settled" movie in influencing the people of the planet to think that purchasing and menipulating "carbon credits" might be something they need to do... while he puts more and more money in his pocket with his involvement in selling carbon credits.

My Dad taught me that a salesman is a person that convinces you that you have a problem and then sells you something to solve it, while a GOOD salesman is a person that works to understand your needs and works to match his product to your requirements. Al Gore is a salesman, and not a very "GOOD" one...

The climate is changing, as it has always done, but likely not because of "your carbon footprint" that we have been "convinced" is a problem we "have" to solve.... and as the climate changes, humans and animals adapt as they have also always done....

Just my two bits,
Marv