Mass Transit Smackdown

As our buddy bush tries to starve Amtrak to death and it's suffering bad press, it's a particularly relevant time to turn our heads to the classic debate over mass transit taking place over at The Truth About Cars. On the liberal side is one Colin Murchie, Director of Government Affairs of the Solar Energy Industries Association:

My taxes bought the road you’re idling on and the troopers and snow plows and medevac flights that come with it; as sure as they bought the El train blowing past you on the left. More than $40 billion per year in the next highway bill, not including state taxes.

Yeah!  So much for "private" transportation.  In reality, only half the cost (perhaps even less) of automobile transportation is covered by your car payment.  Righties always harp on the public financial support that mass transit requires, but I never, ever hear them acknowledge the massive public payout for roads, bridges, traffic signals, and the traffic cops required to keep it all running smoothly.  Would SUVs still fly off the shelves if each one included the cost of building roads?

...people prefer it[cars] by a huge margin.

Robert Farago, an automotive journalist and contributor to The Truth About Cars summarizes the anti-mass transit argument.  He also spins a lot of other bs about cars being cleaner than mass transit, but I'll spare you the slippery facts (I'm not sure what municipality he modeled his argument on, but it can't be a very urban one). 

Yes, people prefer cars, but can you blame them?  With suburban sprawl built around the automotive-marketing-inspired cowboy identity, and cities decimated by urban renewal, can you blame them?  It's hardly a level playing field today, but it hasn't always been that way.  50 years ago, before Robert Moses and his imitators worked so hard to destroy cities, people used mass transit a lot more.  Most cities had streetcars before General Motors, um, invested in them.  Re-level the argument - consider a municipality that has good public transportation, and factor in the cost of car-oriented infrastructure.  I think you'd find individual preferences change.

As expressways around the country clot with traffic, it's easy to blame corrupt/shortsighted/stupid urban planning for the current sad state of transportation.  Many cities are looking forward with new mass transit initiatives. That's a great start, but urban (and unfortunately suburban) planning is the cheapest way to improve transportation.  Smart planning (new urbanism, for example) lessens long commutes and eliminates the need to drive for short errands.  Density increases mass transit ridership and thus cost-effectiveness.   It's no wonder that new developments often look like old New England Towns - we had it right once.  Sometimes old ideas are good ideas.

Comments

[Michael Graves]

This whole argument is predicated on the mistaken belief that consumers are driven solely by cost. That is, if we could find a city that happend to maximize the case for public transit, and made the economics clear to consumers, they'd switch to favoring public transit over cars.

Which misses the whole value prop cars bring to the table. Cars bring flexibility and control over individual transit in a way that public transit cannot. Public transit maybe cheaper and cleaner, but it degrades the choices and opportunities people have in going where they want.

It's hard to imagine that the public transit crowd is unaware of this; however, it's hard to find where this is addressed in their arguments. Cars are cool because the enable you to go where you want, when you want. Most people think this flexibility makes their life better. It certainly costs more, but so does living in a 6000 sq ft house over a 2 room bungalow.

Cost is not the driving force here. *Driving* is the driving force. No one wants to pollute the planet, or get stuck in 2 hour traffic jams, but we do want get the kids to baseball practice, which ain't anywhere near the light rail, or even a bus stop.

The subtext of the post above is that people are basically ignorant or selfish, or both. That's a bad premise to start with. Instead, people are generally pretty savvy about the lifestyle choices they make. Cars are a lifestyle choice -- preferable to the hassle of public transot -- even when factoring in traffic jams, pollution and all the other downsides that cars bring to the table.

-M

[ls]

The subtext of my post is not that people are ignorant or selfish (guilty much?) I'm saying that people and institutions in power have used public funds to create a built environment that requires cars in many places. ). Americans choose cars because smart cynical and selfish business people stacked the deck (see GM/streetcar issue) and it's time to focus on spending our tax money in a way that benefits the greater good, not just selfish pockets. I don't think the mass transit "crowd" is unaware that consumers prefer cars - that would be very naive. I can't speak for others, but I would like to see more public funds spent supporting mass transit rather than auto manufacturers (who are increasingly foreign - getting harder to make a jobs argument even

In New York City public transportation is fast, convenient, widespread and, thus, flexible, so people use it more than cars. Does that mean New Yorkers are altruistic in a way other Americans aren't? I doubt it... They are just presented with a better option.

Cost comes into the argument only in regards to public subsidization of transportation, not consumer choice. You seem to live in a suburb, where public transportation is not very convenient - to the degree that I would argue it's not even a valid option. Suburbs were built specifically to consume raw construction materials and cars, and they succeed at both. Unfortunately, it's not very practical to retrofit mass transit to this model. I hope in the future that mass transit will a primary concern for urban planners - and I think it will, as new developments in traffic-prone areas already do market access to public transportation as an amenity (Southwestern Connecticut comes to mind).

[Michael Graves]

In the Bay Area, BART is a *terrific* way to get to the A's game if you live in the East Bay suburbs. I can get to SFO all the way from Pleasanton station now - that's a great setup.

Public transit is great as far as it goes. Like to see more of it. But you're arguing here that there's a conspiracy here that has hoodwinked the public into thinking that it's a good thing to have lots of places for cars to go. I suggest you don't need a conspiracy by GM or anybody else to establish that: having lots of potential places for cars to go is a good thing all on its own, no conspiratorial machinations needed.

I've lived in Manhattan, and know from experience that your reasons are wrong. You're suggesting that people don't have cars because they like public transit better. That's a false choice. What would have been ideal for me (and all those I knew there) would have been to have cheap, fast, ubiquitous public transportation available, *and* have a car in the garage for routine trips to see relatives in Rockaway NJ, beyond the reach of public transit. It's just too damn expensive in a dense urban setting for most of us to have a car, so we don't, and we get by with public transit, and cabfare. But trips to Rockaway were always a hassle, and a "cost" of living in the City.

There's ways to think of this: public transit is an additional -- and good -- option for the community, in addition to cars. Or public transit is political choice that enlightened minds will choose as means of rejecting the bourgeois consumerism of the vulgar masses. The second view is liberal elite condescenscion -- why go there? Rather, public transit is a good alternative to bring to the community. It will reduce traffic, noise, and pollution in many cases. But cars are great too, can't beat 'em for flexible, speedy transport about town. There's emerging technologies for making these quieter, and better for the environment too. Since we value the most options and most choice and the most value lifestyle-wise for all concerned, we ought to embrace both -- each has a place in the system.

-M

[ls]

You appear to agree with me more than not, which is pretty good in a conversation about politics.

ps - love the teakettle.

[Michael Graves]

Ahh, if only I had the royalty stream that *that* Michael Graves did. I could live in NYC *and* own a car.

Or two. :-)

Seriously, cars are a social good, and an integral part of what makes living in America great. Public transit is great, too, and another social good. As I said, no better way to get to Oakland A's game and back.

So we agree?

Fair enough.

-M