US, National:
No one’s talking about building better transit -6/9/2008

Who was it said “from each according to their abilities to each according to their needs”. Some whacko.

Buses, as they wear out, should be replaced by light rail (as the new systems in Paris) on dedicated lanes. Clean, quiet, smooth ride, electric, environmentally friendly, fast. Next best would be electric buses (Bus Rapid Transit, BRT) on dedicated lanes, but not as smooth or pleasant a ride, and I imagine not as safe.

Freight transport is another issue often overlooked. Train transport for heavy freight is far more fuel-efficient, safe, and environmentally sound. So incentives and programs need to be put in place to make the transition back to rail.

Orestes
New York City

http://www.atu.org/atwork/transit_news/robert-reich-time-to-get-serious-about-transit.html

Do we expect the costs of maintaining parking spaces to be completely covered by “fares” gained through gas taxes? Should we factor in the opportunity cost of not being able to use that land otherwise for creating revenue through commerce? If the parking is free, then the city is loosing the money it could get by renting those spaces to outdoor cafes, for example.

Maybe the argument that on-street parking costs the city something should lead to universal metering.

Do we expect the costs of maintaining parking spaces to be completely covered by “fares” gained through gas taxes? Should we factor in the opportunity cost of not being able to use that land otherwise for creating revenue through commerce? If the parking is free, then the city is loosing the money it could get by renting those spaces to outdoor cafes, for example.

Maybe simply the argument that on-street parking costs the city something should lead to universal metering, even if at a low rate.

“Rational” businesses price based on marginal cost and revenue.

Rational governments price based on need and ability to pay.

For those who didn’t take a lot of Econ, you need to distinguish between average and marginal cost. When the bus or train isn’t full, the marginal cost of adding an additional passenger is close to zero. The cost of adding passengers to full rush hour trains is high.

One thing that has benefitted the MTA in recent years is the addition of off peak passengers. But this has been offset by a huge cut in the fare (relative to inflation), to a marginal rate of zero for unlimited ride cards.

In most of the U.S. people are leaving cars at home or going from 2 to 1, not 1 to 0. So transit is still missing those all-profit off peak riders, even as rush hour capacity is used up.

We should be paying for transit agencies to pay drivers, conductors and dispatchers; buy buses and trains; buy and install tracks, terminals and other facilities; and other costs not directly associated with fuel.

Increased use of transit and more transit investment will be beneficial to:
1) The environment/global warming
2) Demand for gasoline and deisel
3) The economy in many ways
4) Consumers pocketbooks
5) Real Estate values
6) Peace: Less money going to hostile nations in time of war
These are the big issues facing America, Our proposal begins with fuel costs which are now resulting in highre fares and cuts in transit services. But we also propose massive re-investment in capital and operating funds by the federal government. We need, on an emergency basis to preserve and expand mass transit, It is a metter of national defense and economic survival.
See Robert Reich’s comments:Tuesday, June 03, 2008
“With Gas at $4 a Gallon, We Need Public Transportation, But Why We Can’t Get It”
http://robertreich.blogspot.com/search?q=transit

Also, I find it odd that the image that Ben chose to represent transit for this article is an electric light-rail train, which I believe gets its power from natural gas plants that would not be subsidized under this proposal

Mass transit operating costs, while less sensitive to the market cycle are going up very rapidly not just for diesel but other factors as well, including Larry Littlefield’s famous position on pension costs (people are living longer and improvements have been). Part of that cost increase is attributable to drivers switching to mass transit, one would think a good thing.

Lowering fares would increase capacity utilization but still would increase costs. This legislation is entirely proper and will only help to protect fares, especially in New York. You can pick any set of what ifs you want positing increases in capacity utilization and relative fuel expenses but fares still only cover around half of the operating cost.

Now whether this is poor p.r. or not is strictly a strategic ideological consideration. Fuel taxes have been front and center of whatever there was of issue substance in the Democratic primary campaign, except for the war (apparently a little thing) the only issue of real difference between Obama and Clinton. I think this is absolutely excellent p.r. and will begin to lay the ground for the value language of the energy policy and transportation debate between McCain and Obama. Its a small pushback politically against pandering on fuel prices. Has there been any other?

The economic needs of mass transit are enormous more resources from many sources is absolutely necessary if state of good repair is to be maintained while costs go up. A good system is a prerequisite for increased ridership and ultimately system expansion.

Add rising fuel costs to the equation and the farebox recovery ratio declines even further. It is altogether reasonable for transit to ask for additional subsidy to offset additional operating costs. This subsidy will maintain low transit fares in the face of rising gas prices.

Finally, Your farebox recovery ratio of 40% is only valid for about 9 cities in the US, most of which are predominantly rail systems, less affected by rising fuel costs. I also think that the bus heavy systems, which operate at 15-20% farebox recovery spend much more than 20% of their budget on fuel. Can anyone confirm this?

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BQQ/is_7_44/ai_n6131811