| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 5/24 |
| 2005/3/3-4 [Transportation/Car, Transportation/Car/RoadHogs] UID:36508 Activity:high |
3/3 "AAA Says Average Driving Cost Is 56.2 Cents Per Mile For 2004"
http://www.csaa.com/global/articledetail/0,,1008010000%257c4513,00.html
That doesn't even include bridge tolls. I always thought it's about
39 cents per mile, per IRS tax forms.
\_ That's what the IRS gives you, but it's not the real cost. -tom
\_ Have you ever estimated the *negative* cost per mile in terms
of health benefits from riding your bike to work? That would
be an interesting calculation.
\_ I don't know, Viagra can be expensive.
\_ nog. that's just the cost of running/maintaining the car.
it doesn't include the cost say on your health. or roads.
\_ Or the cost of suburban sprawl or the cost in lost
farmland or the cost to rebuild all the infrastructure
left behind in crumbling cities or the cost in broken
communities or the cost....
\_ Public transportation looks better and better once you start
looking at the full costs of owning a car. If you drive for
100 miles, you pay approx $50 ...
\_ did you include all the taxes people pay into it?
\_ The taxes paid into the freeway system or the public
transportation system?
\_ Since both public transportation and cars are massively
subsidized, that doesn't seem necessary. And I meant
better as in cheaper, not more convenient. And might
become more "convenient" in the next few years as
oil prices zoom up.
\_ Public transporation stinks. The majority of people will
gladly pay for the additional cost to NOT have to take
public transportation. As for the health risk, I think
that you are obviously more likely to die in a car than
the subway. However, I bet you're more likely to get sick
from communicable diseases taking the public transport than
if you were to own your own car.
In addition, the convenience of a car far outweigh its costs.
Business also would be a lot less efficient if we had to
rely on public transport. It may work in high density areas
like N.Y. N.Y or S.F., but in places like California, especially
Southern California, it certainly will not work.
\_ It is already starting to work. When it takes three hours
each way to commute from Riverside to LA by car, people
start taking the train, as they have already. If transit
was as massively subsidized as the car, it could be a
high speed rail link and even more would take it.
\_ I wouldn't call 3% working. Riverside is also pretty
damn far for a commute into the city. Also, most people
in LA don't even work in LA.
\_ That is a failure of planning. Just wait till gasoline
hits $10/gallon.
\_ How are cars more massively subsidized than transit?
\_ http://csua.org/u/b8q
Tremendous costs are associated with buying and
paving over all the parking spaces used by cars.
\_ Very useful info! I didn't know heavy rail actually
has lower operating cost than light rail.
\_ What's the difference between heavy rail and commuter
rail?
\_ From the linked article:
U.S. rail transit services require about $12.5
billion annual public subsidy (total capital
and operating expenses minus fares), about an
extra $90 per Large Rail city resident. However,
economic benefits more than repay these subsidies:
rail transit services are estimated to provide
$19.4 billion in annual congestion cost savings,
$8.0 billion in roadway cost savings,
$12.1 billion in parking cost savings,
$22.6 billion in consumer cost savings, and
$5.6 billion in traffic accident cost savings.
So in other words, all those people taking BART
and Caltrain aren't driving alongside you on
101.
\_ My father, a hard core right winger, has
come up with his idea of how public transit
should work after he worked as a bus driver
for a year or so. Basically, the bus should
be free (maybe a dime), and buses should
always have right-of-way, and they should
have a radio to make lights turn green for
them. People would flock to busses in
droves. BART should be free too. -jrleek
\_ Turning lights green for the bus doesn't
win you nearly as much as you think; if you
get any kind of regular ridership, the bus
winds up stopping all the time anyway. -tom
\_ Lights on San Pablo Ave are already turning
green for the San Pablo Rapid buses. Check
out
http://www.actransit.org/riderinfo/sanpablo.wu
\_ sounds a Socialistic idea.
\_ Yeah. But in his experiance the
busses were heavily subsidized anyway.
Basically, few rode the things, and
about half or more those who did ride,
rode free or with some discount. He
gave a lot of free rides. The money
coming into the till just wasn't
paying for anything anyway. -jrleek
\_ A failure of centralized planning?
I disbelieve! According to our good
friend tom, it is the free market that is
mathematicall proven (!) not to work.
-- ilyas
\_ Are you really this stup...Oh, right.
\_ I don't get it. I thought conservatives
hate things tied to Socialism.
\_ Not that this is some new idea.
Salt Lake City's light rail system
is free downtown. -jrleek |
| 5/24 |
|
| www.csaa.com/global/articledetail/0,,1008010000%257c4513,00.html AAA has reported on the average estimated cost of owning and operating a new car each year since 1950. This year, AAA has revised its methodology for calculating driving costs to better reflect the average AAA member's use of a vehicle over five ye ars and 75,000 miles of ownership. This means the estimated costs for 20 04 are similar, but not directly comparable to costs reported by AAA in previous years. The largest component of vehicle cost is vehicle depreciation. AAA estima tes the average new car will depreciate $3,782 per year of ownership. Th e second biggest expense is full insurance coverage estimated to average $1,603 per year. The cost of fuel is the third largest expense incurred by vehicle owners. AAA estimates vehicle owners will pay about $975 per year for fuel. Routine maintenance - including the manufacturer's recommended maintenanc e operations and tire expense -- is estimated to cost $915 per year. AAA calculates typical finance charges are $741 per year based on a 5 year loan at 6 percent interest with a 10 percent down payment. The IRS tax a llowance for business mileage has never allowed full reimbursement of al l expenses associated with automobile ownership and use. AAA's cost figures are based on a composite national average of three dom estically built 2004 cars - a subcompact Chevrolet Cavalier LS, a mid-si ze Ford Taurus SEL Deluxe and a full-size Mercury Grand Marquis LS. These similarly equipped vehicles include air conditioning, automatic tra nsmission, power steering, AM/FM stereo, dual air bags, antilock brakes, cruise control, tilt steering wheel, tinted glass and a rear-window def ogger. AAA Nevada serves nearly 300,000 members throughout the state. |
| csua.org/u/b8q -> www.apta.com/research/info/online/rail_transit.cfm#_Toc84986584 Download Document In Adobe PDF Format) 8 October 2004 Todd Litman Victoria Transport Policy Institute Abstract This report evaluates rail transit benefits based on a comprehensive anal ysis of transportation system performance in major US cities. It finds that cities with large, well-established rail systems have significantl y higher per capita transit ridership, lower average per capita vehicle ownership and annual mileage, less traffic congestion, lower traffic dea th rates, lower consumer expenditures on transportation, and higher tran sit service cost recovery than otherwise comparable cities with less or no rail transit service. This indicates that rail transit systems provid e economic, social and environmental benefits, and these benefits tend t o increase as a system expands and matures. This report discusses best p ractices for evaluating transit benefits. It examines criticisms of rail transit investments, finding that many are based on inaccurate analysis . For this study, US cities were divided into thr ee categories: 1 Large Rail Rail transit is a major component of the transportation system. When these groups are compared, Large Rail cities are found to have signi ficantly better transport system performance. Compared with Bus Only cit ies, Large Rail cities have: * 400% higher per capita transit ridership (589 versus 118 annual passe nger-miles). This graph shows the far higher rates of transit ridership and transit co mmute mode split in "Large Rail" cities. The dashed line at 100% indicat es "Bus Only" city values. This graph compares different categories of cities by var ious performance indicators. The dashed line at 100% indicates "Bus Only " city values. These benefits cannot be attributed entirely rail transit. They partly re flect the larger average size of Large Rail cities. But taking size into account, cities with large, well-established rail transit systems still perform better in various ways than cities that lack rail systems. Thes e benefits result from rails ability to help create more accessible lan d use patterns and more diverse transport systems. In Bus Only and Small Rail cities, congestion costs tend to increase with city size, as indicated by the dashed curve. They have substantially lower congestion cos ts than comparable size cities. As a result, New York and Chicago have a bout half the per capita congestion delay of Los Angeles. Although Large Rail cities have higher per capita congestion costs, this occurs because congestion tends to increase with city size. Taking city size into account, rail transit turns out to significantly reduce per ca pita congestion costs, as indicated in Figure ES-3. Matched pair analysi s indicates that Large Rail cities have about half the per capita conges tion costs as other comparable size cities. However, economic benefits more than re pay these subsidies: rail transit services are estimated to provide $19. Rai l transit also tends to provide economic development benefits, increasin g business activity and tax revenues. Additional, potentially large benefits include improved mobility for non-drivers, increased community livability and improved pu blic health. This study critiques studies which imply that rail transit is ineffective . It finds that their analysis is often incomplete, inaccurate, and bias ed. It examines various factors that could offset rail transit benefits, including the possibility that transit oriented development is harmful to consumers, that new rail systems cannot achieve significant benefits, that apparent benefits of rail actually reflect other factors such as c ity size, and that bus transit can provide equal benefits at less cost. This study indicates that rail transit is particularly important in large , growing cities. Large cities with well established rail systems are cl early advantaged in terms of congestion costs, consumer costs and traffi c crash rates compared with cities that lack such systems. Cities with n ewer and smaller systems have not yet achieved the full impacts, but, if their rail systems continue to develop, their benefits should increase for decades, and so are a valuable legacy for the future. This analysis does not mean that every rail transit project is cost-effec tive, or that rail is always better than bus or highway improvements. It attempts to provide a fair and balanced evaluation of the advantages an d disadvantages of each mode, and identify situations in which each is m ost appropriate. This study concludes that rail transit provides signifi cant benefits, particularly if implemented with supportive transport and land use policies. In many situations, rail transit is the most cost ef fective way to improve urban transportation. Introduction During the last century most North American cities became increasingly au tomobile oriented (for this analysis "automobile" refers to any personal motor vehicle, including cars, light trucks, vans, SUVs and even motorc ycles). Now, the majority of personal travel is by automobile, the major ity of transportation resources (money and land) are devoted to automobi les and their facilities, and many communities have dispersed land use p atterns that depend on automobile travel for access. The resulting growt h in vehicle traffic creates various problems, including congestion, hig h road and parking facility costs, costs to consumers of owning and oper ating automobiles, traffic accidents, inadequate mobility for non-driver s, and various environmental impacts. In recent years many experts and citizens have advocated diversifying our transport systems by increasing support for alternatives modes such as walking, cycling and public transit. To accomplish this many cities are making significant investments in public transit, including busways, lig ht rail and heavy rail systems. There is considerable debate over the me rits of these investments. This study evaluates rail transit benefits based on a comprehensive analy sis of transportation system performance in US cities. It uses best av ailable evaluation methods, based on guidance from leading experts and o rganizations (Cambridge Systematics, 1998; This analysis takes into acc ount a variety of performance factors, including the amount and type of travel that occurs, congestion costs, road and parking facility costs, c onsumer costs, accident rates, transit system efficiency and cost recove ry, and various other impacts. This study compares rail and bus transit, identifies the conditions in wh ich each is most appropriate, and discusses the role that each mode can play in an efficient transportation system. It also describes various wa ys of improving transit service performance in order to increase benefit s This study evaluates various criticisms of rail transit, including claims that it provides minimal congestion and emission reduction benefits, th at it is not cost effective, and that money is better spent on roads, bu s service or subsidized cars. It also examines various factors that coul d offset rail transit benefits, including the possibility that transit o riented development is harmful to consumers, that new rail systems canno t achieve significant benefits, that apparent benefits of rail actually reflect other factors such as city size, and that bus transit can provid e equal benefits at less cost. The Analysis This section describes the evaluation of rail transit benefits. About two dozen US cities have some sort of rail transit service, but m ost are small and so cannot be expected to significantly effect regional transportation system performance, although they may have significant i mpacts on a particularly corridor or within a particular area. For this study, US cities are divided into three categories: 0 Large Rail Rail transit is a major component of the transportation system. This figure shows the portion of commutes by rail and bus transit. Only a few cities have rail systems large enough to significan tly impact regional transportation system performance. The next section of this report evaluates these different categories in t erms of various transportation system performance indicators. Becau... |
| www.actransit.org/riderinfo/sanpablo.wu "San Pablo Rapid Service," two minutes long, was prepared for transportat ion policy makers. We are providing the movies in two formats-Windows Media Player and Quick Time. Currently, NextBus signs are i nstalled at many locations along the Rapid line, including at most stops in Berkeley and the City of San Pablo, as well as Contra Costa College, Del Norte BART and the Jack London Garage. SMART Corridor's program sponsored by the Alameda County's Co ngestion Management Agency (CMA) AC Transit's San Pablo Rapid Bus is a vital element in the SMART Corridors program, as is the Rapid Bus planne d for Telegraph Avenue and International Boulevard. Traffic signal priority will help buses move smoothly through intersectio ns and get you where you want to go faster anywhere from Contra Costa Co llege in San Pablo to Jack London Square in downtown Oakland - and to al l major points in between. Van Hool buses with a low-floor for easy entrance and exit. Van Hools have a third rear doo r in the back for quicker unloading. Look for buses with a red Rapid log o, which is also visible at all Rapid stops. Bus stop locations, shelter design, and traffic signal priority are being coordinated through the TAC and PAC to ensure that co mmunity concerns are identified and addressed. |