The Answer to Automotive Pollution and Urban Congestion: Cars

by Robert Farago

May 23rd, 2008 10:11 PM

the answer to automotive pollution and urban congestion cars

Well, here's some counter-intuitive thinking to challenge TTAC's Best and Brightest and/or infuriate The New York Times' Editorial Board (sorry, Wilkinson, it's true): new highways are less environmentally damaging than new mass transit. "Each mile of urban highway typically provides far more passenger miles of travel than a mile of light-rail transit line. The average mile of U.S. light-rail line, for instance, [provides] only 15 per cent as many passenger miles as the average lane mile of urban freeway.” This startling conclusion comes to us from U.S. environmental economist Randal O'Toole [via Canada's Globe and Mail]. Needless to say, O'Toole's crunched the numbers: "A 1-per-cent increase in new-model cars on the road produces more benefits – in energy efficiency and in greenhouse gas reductions – than any light-rail system can produce." He also points out that mass transit systems are a 40 to 50 year investment that can't take advantage of ongoing technological improvements like… cars. That said, O'Toole favors a range of government interventions to keep things moving: tolls, toll lanes on expressways, peak-hour tolls and the "smartest traffic-light technology that money can buy."

Comments

Join the conversation

4 of 44 comments

Geeber on May 27, 2008
Pch101: That’s the definition of an “externality.” The end user is not paying for the full cost of his actions; someone else is. But drivers - the end user - are still paying the costs to ameliorate or eliminate those problems, just not through fuel taxes. The original assertion, remember, was that fuel taxes, not drivers, aren't covering these costs. Pch101: No system is self contained. Drivers like to believe that they are rugged individualists who carry their own weight, but they are the opposite — they rely on massive infrastructure that takes a lot of money from a lot of different sources to feed. The debate over "internal improvements" and who should bear the costs dates back to the earliest days of this country. In the 19th century, the debate centered on dirt roads, canals and interstate railroads; in the 20th century, it centered on paved local roads, interstate highways, airports and mass transit systems. I certainly agree that any successful transportation system will require some sort of public assistance - in the form of initial start-up funds, or government-obtained easements and rights-of-way, or continuing subsidies. What I disagree on are: 1. That the individual mobility provided by motor vehicles is somehow a bad thing. 2. That drivers are getting some sort of free ride while transit systems (and, thus, their users) are unfairly bearing all of the costs. 3. That Americans are a bunch of dummies for not living like Europeans or laying out their cities like European ones, which completely ignores the differences in available space and sense of scale that comes from living in a large country with relatively cheap land, wide open spaces and relatively low population density. (Not to mention that Europeans have only started thinking on a continent-wide basis for the last 50 years or so.) 4. That people are stupid or selfish for often preferring the privacy and convenience of the motor vehicle over the attributes offered by mass transit.

Like Reply
Pch101 on May 27, 2008
The original assertion, remember, was that fuel taxes, not drivers, aren’t covering these costs. There are two separate but related points being made. Road taxes and user fees don't cover the entire cost of the road network, and drivers don't bear all of the external costs of driving in general. Personally, I don't expect them to. What invariably happens in these discussions, though, is that the anti-transit crowd gets high and mighty about the subsidies needed for transit, while forgetting that they are being subsidized, too. A common argument against transit systems is that they are losers because the fares don't cover the costs. But that's the pot calling the kettle black. There may be individual circumstances when a given piece of the transportation network may cover itself, such as a toll bridge or a very busy rail line, but generally speaking, all transportation generates a loss unto itself. What I disagree on are: 1. That the individual mobility provided by motor vehicles is somehow a bad thing. 2. That drivers are getting some sort of free ride while transit systems (and, thus, their users) are unfairly bearing all of the costs. 3. That Americans are a bunch of dummies for not living like Europeans or laying out their cities like European ones, which completely ignores the differences in available space and sense of scale that comes from living in a large country with relatively cheap land, wide open spaces and relatively low population density. 4. That people are stupid or selfish for often preferring the privacy and convenience of the motor vehicle over the attributes offered by mass transit. I don't see many people making the first argument. They may argue that the cost of driving outweighs the benefits, but I don't see anybody lobbying against mobility, per se. You can't have a free enterprise system or democracy if people and goods can't move around. The second point is specific to the realm of debate. The adamant anti-transit drivers give themselves a free ride in terms of analyzing the costs of their own behavior, by applying a higher standard to transit systems than they do to themselves. I don't see us as being dumb, but we sure have done a number on ourselves by making ourselves so highly dependent upon oil-based transportation. I certainly understand the desire for low density and private transportation, but there seems to be a point at which these create diseconomies of scale, with more drawbacks than benefits. We've handed the power of our destinies over to Middle East oil sheiks who don't like us very much. That wasn't a very good idea.

Like Reply
ChuckR on May 27, 2008

Getting back to user fees and Interstates/state highways - I have yet to see anyone here cite numbers on the amounts collected and the subsidy. Here are some numbers for the MN Hiawatha light rail system. Operating expenses of $15M, revenue of $15750000, assuming 9 million trips per year at an average of $1.75 per trip. That average is based on peak and off-peak rates. So roughly break-even in operation. What about retiring the $300M cost to build? Assume a 30 year 3% state muni bond (best I could do with a mortgage calculator). The bond payments constitute another $15.2M per year. There's a subsidy for you. And one that the anti-roadists would object to were it applied to highways. I agree that local roads are subsidized from general revenue. But come on, what else do we want from cities and towns? Police and fire protection, schools, water/sewerage, garbage collection - you get that right, you get my vote for mayor. You pretty much need streets for all that.

Like Reply
Geeber on May 27, 2008
Pch101: Personally, I don’t expect them to. What invariably happens in these discussions, though, is that the anti-transit crowd gets high and mighty about the subsidies needed for transit, while forgetting that they are being subsidized, too. A common argument against transit systems is that they are losers because the fares don’t cover the costs. But that’s the pot calling the kettle black. The problem with many transit systems isn't lack of funds or insufficient subsidies, but poor management. When the subsidies are used to cover the costs of new, up-to-date equipment, or clean stations - most people support that. When the subsidies are used to support staff feather-bedding and very high salaries for ticket takers, then there's a problem. Which is what happens in Pennsylvania with the Pittsburgh Port Authority and SEPTA, two systems that are perpetually crying out for more money, even though both have a steady stream of riders willing and able to pay for service. The density is there; the demand is there; the good management too often isn't. I have no problem with subsidies for mass transit, but, after having studied the problems of some systems, I'm no more sympathetic to their cries for more money than I am to those who claim that GM needs our support (expressed through a purchase) despite the (repeated) incompetence of senior management. And just as those who refuse to buy a GM vehicle are called "anti-American" or "someone who doesn't care about American jobs," those who question the management of mass transit systems or the need for more funds are labled as "anti-transit" or "selfish,", etc. Some of us ask these questions precisely because we DO care about transit. Pch101: I don’t see many people making the first argument. They may argue that the cost of driving outweighs the benefits, but I don’t see anybody lobbying against mobility, per se. You can’t have a free enterprise system or democracy if people and goods can’t move around. Not so much on this site, but I see plenty of people arguing that the personal mobility provided by the private motor vehicle is a bad thing. For many of us, driving is mobility. Pch101: I certainly understand the desire for low density and private transportation, but there seems to be a point at which these create diseconomies of scale, with more drawbacks than benefits. Judging by trends, $4-a-gallon for unleaded is already curbing the excesses...the SUV and pickup truck segments are nosediving. I just read on CNN that Americans have curbed the number of miles they are driving. Mass transit use is up in most cities. Meanwhile, the imploding housing bubble has stalled development. This will work itself out...but people will still drive, there will still be enjoyable cars for sale (if anything, the collapse of the truck market will encourage manufacturers to put more effort into passenger cars) and the suburbs will still thrive. And the anti-car crowd will go right on complaining...

Like Reply