Dear Tim:
Of that $0.52 assumes 16MPG for gas.
The average is higher than 16MPG.
Irrelevant as that is what the IRS assumes. Most SUVs and pickups don't even get that as an overall average.
We spend hundreds of millions annually to maintain and add to the highway system. For 20% of that, we can double the main line rail track.
I have some doubt that we can do that. Even if we can doubling the main line rail track wouldn't cover as much area as 20% of the highway system. The rail lines, even if doubled, wouldn't take everyone to where they need to go. Also if you get a lot more total use with double the rail track, then you need to pay for more maintenance, more cars and engines, more employees on the trains and at stations, etc.
That request to double mainline track was a single loan whose principal was equal to just 20% of one year of highway construction budget nationwide. In other words, the highway system spends every year on construction, 5 times the cost to double all of the mainline track nationwide.
Hard to say. Personally it wouldn't reducing my driving by a lot. I supposed I'd consider taking a train to New York or FLA rather then driving or flying but I don't visit either too often. If the train works out ok and is free, it would do more to increase my total travel rather then displace it from driving. It would have almost no effect on my local driving. Even living in one of the worst metro areas for traffic, it still would normally take longer to get to most places by mass transit, and that would be true even if the budget for mass transit greatly increased.
Not true. It takes 2.8 hours to go from Kenosha, WI to downtown Chicago, IL by car during rush morning (its long past a rush hour). By Metra from downtown Kenosha, it takes 40 minutes including many local stops along the way. That lets out at Ogilvie Transportation Center. From there its less than 5 minutes to most downtown locations by bus. Quite a few use mass transit than drive because of the aggravation and traffic jams. And the number is rising. So mass transit is faster than going by car.
And with 5% of the annual gas taxes, mass transit would have 3-6 times the equipment and 10 times the operating budget yielding to more area covered, more frequent service and longer hours of operation.
Enough to reduce long distance highway usage by 10%?
I doubt it. In any case 10% of long distance highway use is probably less than 1% of total miles driven.
You forget trucking which does more long distance than 1%. IIRC the definition for local is within 5 miles, intracity at 20 miles, regional at 100 miles and long distance greater than that. Probably different in LA with the break numbers being higher because its so spread out. Intermodal is taking over from trucking even with the negative subsidies that exist. At low costs for rail transit almost all intercity traffic with nearby rail terminals would be done on rail. Thats more than 10% of the miles driven, since is not rare for a truck to be driven 300,000 miles in a single year.
A lot of people commute suburb to suburb. It isn't practical to have trains to many of the likely destinations. Buses might be possible, but would have to fight traffic like the cars, would be less convenient, and still wouldn't serve many locations very well even if you greatly increased the budget for buses.
The $0.52 cents per mile you quote above includes the overhead of owning a car. I'm not going to get rid of my car. Taking mass transit would likely be more expensive. I'd be making the car payments (including insurance, taxes, etc. and the daily payments of the mass transit.
There is talk of using special bus lanes on the freeways as an alternative to light rail. In the older days before the 1960's, Milwaukee was served by an electrified trolley system that did go into every suburb. Most of the current freeways go along old trolley routes. Because it was owned by the same WEPCO that delivered power across the state, high tension power lines also run many of those same routes. So your contention that light or heavy rail couldn't go into the suburbs is wrong.
Even so, the current property tax supported bus system has Freeway Flyers that go from large parking lots in the suburbs to downtown and vice versa. These take less time and are generally cheaper than driving into downtown and parking there. The parking lots are free while downtown parking costs a few hundred a month. The weekly cost is $20 to use the Flyers so the savings runs over $100 a month before such things as gas, tires and maintenance are taken into account. With something like rail, the system would be similar. You park at a free lot by the rail station which is monitored for security, you get on the train to downtown which goes fast as few or no stops are done on the way, you then either walk or transfer to a bus going to your job. It is possible that you work in a suburb across town, in which you transfer to the train going that way, get on the bus from the train station and get dropped off at work.
The average Flyer route is 12 miles so that is $0.167 per mile which doesn't include further runs on subsequent buses. Since most of the driving is in rush hour a generous MPG is 20 for a car (less for a SUV or Pickup). At $2.50 a gallon (today's price) thats $0.125 a mile. Tires cost $400 for 40K miles or $0.01 a mile. A oil change every 3000 miles is $30 or another $0.01 a mile. Its hard to estimate what maintenance costs but, here is a stab, adding a year warranty coverage on a car is about $800. That assumes 10,000 miles driving. Thus the per mile cost is $0.08. Total for the car is $0.225 a mile and thats without parking. Parking $10 a day downtown which is $5 for each trip or about $0.417 a mile. Thats $0.167 for the bus and $0.642. Bus is no brainer given that. The big hit is the parking. Without it, the bus still take the cake. Its even bigger, if you go some distance beyond downtown.
Here are some takes on this:
raincityguide.com
metrarail.com
nytimes.com
Pete |
