Living Car Free - Even With Gas at $3 a Gallon, Metro Isn't Much of a Bargain (Article)

Article makes point that unles one completely gets rid of a car, merely switching to mass forms of transportation doesn't save any money. Fails to mention bike commuting as an alternative.

-----------------------------
Even With Gas at $3 a Gallon, Metro Isn't Much of a Bargain
By Albert B. Crenshaw

Sunday, October 16, 2005; Page F06

With gasoline around $3 a gallon, there is a lot of talk about how families can cut down on driving. Advice includes switching to public transportation, leaving the SUV at home.

But while that may be a socially desirable, even patriotic, thing to do, commuters in the Washington area, and probably other big cities with mass transit systems, shouldn't expect to see big savings simply from jumping onto Metro.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/15/AR2005101500181.html

but what if you add in a program like this...

http://www.commutercheck.com/home.html

When petrol is well over £4.00 a gallon (try £4.50 in some parts this summer) then anything seems like a bargain.

Still doesn't get people cycling though. Tragic really. If only people realised how much better it would be if more people cycled.

What do you think can be done now?

The author adds the cost of parking at the Metro station to the cost of the Metro commute, but he does not add the cost of parking downtown to the cost of the car commute. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that this is an honest mistake, but it still does skew the numbers. (Of course, not knowing the Washington area, I don't know if people can avoid Metro parking costs altogether by walking/biking/etc. to the train station.)

In the article writer's speculated scenario, he assumes that a person who is taking the train to work everyday is still driving 10,000 miles a year. (Roughly 27.4 miles for 365 days of the year.) That's a lot of mileage for someone who doesn't drive to work. In the Chicago area, Allstate Insurance's definition of a "light usage motorist" is someone who drives less than 7500 miles a year. 7500 is still a lot of miles, but 10,000 miles is a lot of miles to be driven by someone who isn't driving.

The author adds the cost of parking at the Metro station to the cost of the Metro commute, but he does not add the cost of parking downtown to the cost of the car commute. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that this is an honest mistake, but it still does skew the numbers. (Of course, not knowing the Washington area, I don't know if people can avoid Metro parking costs altogether by walking/biking/etc. to the train station.)

In the article writer's speculated scenario, he assumes that a person who is taking the train to work everyday is still driving 10,000 miles a year. (Roughly 27.4 miles for 365 days of the year.) That's a lot of mileage for someone who doesn't drive to work. In the Chicago area, Allstate Insurance's definition of a "light usage motorist" is someone who drives less than 7500 miles a year. 7500 is still a lot of miles, but 10,000 miles is a lot of miles to be driven by someone who isn't driving.

Good one.

I'm glad you noticed this because parking in downtown Washington DC would set you back $15.00 to $25.00 dollars EACH DAY! That means you'll pay an additional $3,300.00 to $5,500.00 just for parking! HOLY COW!

He posted the site to Metro but forgot to tell you that a weekly pass on the Metro for 31 weeks (220 days) would set you back $682.00 and not $1,562.00 dollars. Buying a Pass with Transit checks brings the cost down to $614 or less! Furthermore, the pass allows you to use it on the weekends for free! He also forgot to include tolls and parking tickets or violations he'll pick up along the way! Tolls alone will set you back another $300.00 dollars and who knows how much you'll accumulate in tickets each year. We also have to take into account break-ins since DC is such a nice neighborhood at night and how much time did he waste in traffic? I guess he forgot to mention HIS time wasted in traffic jams each year!

The author adds the cost of parking at the Metro station to the cost of the Metro commute, but he does not add the cost of parking downtown to the cost of the car commute. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that this is an honest mistake, but it still does skew the numbers. (Of course, not knowing the Washington area, I don't know if people can avoid Metro parking costs altogether by walking/biking/etc. to the train station.)

In the article writer's speculated scenario, he assumes that a person who is taking the train to work everyday is still driving 10,000 miles a year. (Roughly 27.4 miles for 365 days of the year.) That's a lot of mileage for someone who doesn't drive to work. In the Chicago area, Allstate Insurance's definition of a "light usage motorist" is someone who drives less than 7500 miles a year. 7500 is still a lot of miles, but 10,000 miles is a lot of miles to be driven by someone who isn't driving. Thank You Vicious Cycle. The Washington Post isn't written by people from DC its written by people from the suburbs. They can't conceive of biking or walking to the metro station, as you noticed. <insert huge rant> Metro has been expanding bike/ped access to the metro stations but has a LONG way to go. My closest metro station had NO bike parking a few years ago, now they have weather sheltered bike parking. The suburban stations near where the posties live (judging by the ignorance in the reporting and visiting those stations on my local travels) have limited bike/ped access they are islands surrounded by car domination. I regularly visit Springfield, Shady Grove and recently visited Vienna, so I'm reporting ground truth here, the suburban stations are designed specifically to discourage pedestrian or bike access.

For example, at the Springfield station, there is a huge transportation project. I went to the public outreach office in the Springfield mall and asked how, when the project is completed, I and my daughter were to walk from the station to a nearby shopping plaza. I was told that the transportation upgrade did not include pedestrians and there was no pedestrian consideration at all. The colocated map corroborated the outreach specialist's statement. If the author of the post article lives near the springfield station it is reasonable that the author honestly believes that biking to the station is not an option even though there are usually bikes parked at both entrances. The physical evidence demonstrates that bike access demand exists. It is an option, it just isn't a safe option, we do it but it scares the living daylights out of us the way the urban planners designed the access routes and the way the car people out there treat their car free neighbors.

As a DC car free person I have to respond that Vicious Cycle has made some valid points here. If you live here check out the Post's assertions in the mid 1990s about the Wilson Bridge falling in the water within 5 years, and then bike down to Jone's point and see that now in late 2005 the bridge is physically present. Honest mistake?

In LA, it costs $3 for a day pass, which allows you unlimited rides from 3am - 3am. That is MUCH more of a bargain than gas. Hopping on Metro in LA takes anywhere from 1-1.5 times as long as getting in a car, even with bus/train transfers, because traffic is so bad.

It takes me 35 minutes to get to work in a car, 35-45 minutes on the bus, and 25-30 minutes by bike.

The AAA figured last year, when gas was relatively cheap -- about $1.94 a gallon -- that driving a new Dodge minivan 15,000 miles would cost $8,293 for the year, including about $1,335 for gas. AAA figured in maintenance, tires, insurance, license, registration, taxes, depreciation and finance charges. AAA apparently assumed, though it didn't specifically say so, that the van got around 22 miles per gallon.

Last year I drove a Honda Accord to and from work all year long and on a few long trips. I probably put about 15,000 miles on the car. Gas prices during that time ranged from about $2.25 to about $3.00. I'll say $2.75 to be fair. The Accord averages about 31 mpg. I also spent about $600 on insurance, $1500 on repairs, $130 on oil changes, and I'll even toss in the car stereo I bought for $110. I paid the state of VA about $50 for registration, the county of Hanover about $25 for a decal, and the county about $400 in property taxes. That's all I can think of to keep the car running all year. Total: $4146. No finance charges (paid it off 8 years ago), and I'm ignoring depreciation because it's 11 years old.

So unless everyone is driving around in newish cars that get mileage in the low 20s, AAA's figures may be a bit inflated.

And yet, I still would take Metro if there were such a thing around here.

I'm glad you noticed this because parking in downtown Washington DC would set you back $15.00 to $25.00 dollars EACH DAY! That means you'll pay an additional $3,300.00 to $5,500.00 just for parking! HOLY COW!

He posted the site to Metro but forgot to tell you that a weekly pass on the Metro for 31 weeks (220 days) would set you back $682.00 and not $1,562.00 dollars. Buying a Pass with Transit checks brings the cost down to $614 or less! Furthermore, the pass allows you to use it on the weekends for free!

Maybe one of you who lives in the DC area will write to the paper and try to correct the creative math that the article uses.....

Last year I drove a Honda Accord to and from work all year long and on a few long trips. I probably put about 15,000 miles on the car. Gas prices during that time ranged from about $2.25 to about $3.00. I'll say $2.75 to be fair. The Accord averages about 31 mpg. I also spent about $600 on insurance, $1500 on repairs, $130 on oil changes, and I'll even toss in the car stereo I bought for $110. I paid the state of VA about $50 for registration, the county of Hanover about $25 for a decal, and the county about $400 in property taxes. That's all I can think of to keep the car running all year. Total: $4146. No finance charges (paid it off 8 years ago), and I'm ignoring depreciation because it's 11 years old.

So unless everyone is driving around in newish cars that get mileage in the low 20s, AAA's figures may be a bit inflated.

And yet, I still would take Metro if there were such a thing around here.

You forgot to include depreciation and replacement cost for the vehicle. Eventually, you'll have to sell and buy a new car and that cost is not figured into your totals but they are real. Someone who is car free does not have to worry about purchasing a new train or bus because the city and state pick up these costs.

The replacement costs of a new vehicle, high gas prices and insurance is why Americans are spending 20% of their income on transportation.

You forgot to include depreciation and replacement cost for the vehicle.

I did say I was ignoring depreciation. The car is (was -- I sold it last week) 11 years old, and had already lost most of its value. Worst case would have it depreciating from $2000 to $1500, still bringing my annual costs in way under AAA's. I don't count replacement cost because I didn't incur that cost until this year.

I'm sure most Americans are driving nicer, newer cars than I was, and with all the SUVs around, I doubt the average gas mileage is anywhere near my 31 mpg. I'm just making the point that you can drive a lot more cheaply than AAA claims.

And still, still, still, even though I could operate a motor vehicle for about half what AAA claims it costs, I would take Metro or an equivalent if it were available to me, because the reduction in stress is priceless.

You can't compare using public transportation WHILE still owning a car to living car free... period.

End of discussion.

You can't compare using public transportation WHILE still owning a car to living car free... period.

End of discussion.

http://www.buttonpeople.com/Bingo.jpg

The author adds the cost of parking at the Metro station to the cost of the Metro commute, but he does not add the cost of parking downtown to the cost of the car commute. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that this is an honest mistake, but it still does skew the numbers. (Of course, not knowing the Washington area, I don't know if people can avoid Metro parking costs altogether by walking/biking/etc. to the train station.)

In the article writer's speculated scenario, he assumes that a person who is taking the train to work everyday is still driving 10,000 miles a year. (Roughly 27.4 miles for 365 days of the year.) That's a lot of mileage for someone who doesn't drive to work. In the Chicago area, Allstate Insurance's definition of a "light usage motorist" is someone who drives less than 7500 miles a year. 7500 is still a lot of miles, but 10,000 miles is a lot of miles to be driven by someone who isn't driving.


Many employers provide free parking on their premises, even in D.C. In fact, the large majority of employers provide parking, when you restrict yourself to the sort of employers whose employees are deciding between a car commute from the suburbs and mass transportation to get to work. Most of these employers, on the other hand, won't pay for parking at Metro stations or for mass transit passes. (Some do, though.)

Then thousand miles isn't that much, actually. It's less than two hundred miles a week. Even without work commuting, it's possible to put that many miles on a car with weekend trips to the mall, grocery shopping, going out to dinner, ferrying kids here and there, and the like. Again, if you're talking about a suburban person for whom owning a car is a realistic option in the first place-- as opposed to someone living in the heart of Manhattan, say-- you have to assume that the distances to non-work destinations are great enough so that ten thousand miles a year to these destinations is realistic. Admittedly, ten thousand miles is on the higher end of realistic estimates for non-work destinations.

So, I don't think the article is unfair. Other assumptions more favorable to mass transit are possible, true, and they might be more accurate for some people in his audience. What are you going to do, though?

This article just details an example of a general principle regarding the finances of car ownership. Subtracting a car's purchase price, finance charges, depreciation, and insurance, the cost per mile of driving is not very high. Except in unusual cases-- high parking fees, or many traffic fines--it amounts to the cost of gas, and the wear on the car.

So if you already own a car-- and thus will already pay for it, the interest on any loan, and insurance-- any alternative mode of transportation to replace trips you would otherwise make with that car would have to be pretty cheap to save you any money. Even bike commuting with moderately priced equipment wouldn't save money for many people. Assume that the cost of gasoline plus wear alone is about $.25 a mile. That's on the high side for typical cars, but adjust as you see fit. Replacing even two thousand miles of commuting with a bicycle would save money only if the cost of bike commuting in total was less than $500. That total would include not just the bike, but tools, bags, clothing, tires, tubes, lights, repairs, extra food, and batteries. A lot of people on this forum spend more than that. Even if you were to spend less, the savings likely wouldn't amount to very much. These points have been made in many threads where the subject pops up from time to time, so I won't continue.

I'll point out what the article also says. Real financial savings occur only when the car can be eliminated altogether.

Of course, as goes without saying on a forum like this one, there are other reasons to ride a bike than replacing car costs. I won't rehearse all those reasons, either.

There's another angle here - couples and families with multiple cars can get ride of some of them and save real money while still having a car when they need it. We are down to one car, and it makes a difference. It's like having half a car each.

We have several car share programs here in the Bay Area that allow you to basically "own" a car for $40/mo plus a charge per mile, when you need one. The firm, ie. City Car Share, has a fleet of VW or Scion and others that are strategically parked around the city and have GPS, so they all show up on an internet map. My understanding is when you need a car you log in, find the closest one, reserve it and go use it. I believe you can leave it somewhere else, where the next person goes and gets it for their use. They have some sort of card-activated key or something so you can drive any of them. Much cheaper than owning your own, when your needs are occasional.

Many employers provide free parking on their premises, even in D.C.

Whenever I receive job offers from employers that provide "free" parking, I find that they offer me a salary about 17% lower than my other job offers. This makes me suspicious that the "free" parking is not so free after all. Of course, I'm willing to concede the possibility of coincidence, that it's only by chance that employers with free parking want to give me smaller pay. And even if it's not coincidence, it's possible that this reflects a regional trend, and would not apply to D.C. But given the choice between a better paycheck and free parking, I'll take the better paycheck.

Whenever I receive job offers from employers that provide "free" parking, I find that they offer me a salary about 17% lower than my other job offers. This makes me suspicious that the "free" parking is not so free after all. Of course, I'm willing to concede the possibility of coincidence, that it's only by chance that employers with free parking want to give me smaller pay. And even if it's not coincidence, it's possible that this reflects a regional trend, and would not apply to D.C. But given the choice between a better paycheck and free parking, I'll take the better paycheck.

Right, well, I don't think it is typical in the D.C. area for employer-provided parking to involve a 17% reduction in gross salary(!). If it did, though, then obviously that would be a good deal of money that could be saved by bicycle commuting.

There is also the question of whether cycling would actually save any money in a given job. That is, even if an employer offering a free -- or "free"-- parking space offered a lower salary initially, that employer probably wouldn't offer a raise to someone already working there who stopped using his parking space. In that case, there would be no savings in parking from bicycle commuting either, except in the odd case in which a person was in a position to switch jobs and the commuting costs were the decisive factor. Given that most people are not in this situation, I don't think the WP article is unfair or stacked for omitting parking expenses.

Whatever is true in D.C., there are plenty of city centers with *very* expensive parking, and insofar as we're commenting about the article's application to other areas we do have to consider parking expenses, true. Those areas are always congested, too, and so one can save time on a bicycle, as well.

With the holidays not too far away, I'm reminded of another benefit of utility cycling, if not commuting. One can negotiate the jam-packed parking lots of suburban malls with ease on a bike. It can take ten minutes for a driver to move a quarter-mile during holiday shopping. If you're on a bike, drivers will look at you at you like a man in quicksand glares at an eagle soaring overhead...

This article just details an example of a general principle regarding the finances of car ownership. Subtracting a car's purchase price, finance charges, depreciation, and insurance, the cost per mile of driving is not very high. Except in unusual cases-- high parking fees, or many traffic fines--it amounts to the cost of gas, and the wear on the car.

So if you already own a car-- and thus will already pay for it, the interest on any loan, and insurance-- any alternative mode of transportation to replace trips you would otherwise make with that car would have to be pretty cheap to save you any money. Even bike commuting with moderately priced equipment wouldn't save money for many people. Assume that the cost of gasoline plus wear alone is about $.25 a mile. That's on the high side for typical cars, but adjust as you see fit. Replacing even two thousand miles of commuting with a bicycle would save money only if the cost of bike commuting in total was less than $500. That total would include not just the bike, but tools, bags, clothing, tires, tubes, lights, repairs, extra food, and batteries. A lot of people on this forum spend more than that. Even if you were to spend less, the savings likely wouldn't amount to very much. These points have been made in many threads where the subject pops up from time to time, so I won't continue.

I'll point out what the article also says. Real financial savings occur only when the car can be eliminated altogether.

Of course, as goes without saying on a forum like this one, there are other reasons to ride a bike than replacing car costs. I won't rehearse all those reasons, either.

Merriweather hits the nail on the head here. If you are going to own a car anyway and keep it parked in your driveway, the only money you save by bicycling or public transport is fuel and a bit of maintenance - maybe some parking if you travel to a place with parking fees.

For the most part, public transportation is not cheap. Riding a bus around the city for a day can easily cost $4.00 or more and if you need to commute to the suburbs, it costs more than that (assuming you do not have an unlimited pass). Even with a gas-guzzling car, you can beat that price by driving yourself not to mention the comfort and convenience of using your own automobile.

In MOST cities, bicycling is faster and more convenient that taking the bus. When I bicycle past busses, I look inside and wonder why people don't bicycle instead. More often than not, however, there is nobody to look at inside the busses because in this town the busses run mostly empty.

There is also the question of whether cycling would actually save any money in a given job. That is, even if an employer offering a free -- or "free"-- parking space offered a lower salary initially, that employer probably wouldn't offer a raise to someone already working there who stopped using his parking space.

You are correct. If I am working for an employer who is incurring the expense of building/maintaining acres and acres of "free" parking, they have no ready means of getting rid of my individual unused parking spot and converting it to cash. They continue to incur expenses on that parking spot.

Of course, I freely admit that I do not know the D.C. job market, but am only relating my own experience in the Chicago area. I currently work in the Chicago Loop in a district where the majority use public transportation to get to work. I spent many years as a consultant and only recently settled down into full-time employment. When I began to consider full-time job offers, I found that the offers from suburban employers who surrounded their buildings with acres of free parking were not as good as what I could get in the Loop.

In Suburban Nation, the authors made the claim that due to the way tax laws are typically set up, there are chunks of suburban sprawl that use more in services (roads, infrastructure, etc.) than they pay into the taxes that pay for these services. If this claim is valid in at least some cases, it suggests that at least some suburban employers are experienced at passing their expenses along to someone else. And this is what I suspect is happening with their free parking. They build acres and acres of parking, and then they look for ways to fill the budget gap. Payroll for rank and file employees is probably an easy target. This is conjecture on my part, and I'm willing to see how this plays out as I look for work throughout my career.

By the way, there's nothing scientific or studied about the 17% figure I quoted. This was just some quick and dirty math on my recent job offers. (Of course, one American cultural taboo is that few of us are willing to discuss how much we make, except perhaps with recruiters and family. This taboo makes it more difficult to assess how significant, if at all, these pay gaps might be.)

In MOST cities, bicycling is faster and more convenient that taking the bus. When I bicycle past busses, I look inside and wonder why people don't bicycle instead. More often than not, however, there is nobody to look at inside the busses because in this town the busses run mostly empty.

There's a psychology in the inner city regarding bus transport that I've been saying for years. In New York City, there isn't any shame at all in taking the bus and the monthly Metrocard makes us rather inexpensive. You'll find young and middle aged individuals waiting 20 minutes for a bus because this is preferred over utility cycling which is done in large part by those desperately poor. When given the opportunity between looking poor (utility cycling) and not (bus transport), people choose the latter.

When I'm riding, I can usually stare down most people waiting for the bus. When actually confronted, bus riders are slighly embarassed at their circumstance as I used to be when I took this mode of transport exclusively. I don't feel the least bit that way when I'm utility cycling but try explaining that to most people and they'll think your crazy.

There's a psychology in the inner city regarding bus transport that I've been saying for years. In New York City, there isn't any shame at all in taking the bus and the monthly Metrocard makes us rather inexpensive. You'll find young and middle aged individuals waiting 20 minutes for a bus because this is preferred over utility cycling which is done in large part by those desperately poor. When given the opportunity between looking poor (utility cycling) and not (bus transport), people choose the latter.

When I'm riding, I can usually stare down most people waiting for the bus. When actually confronted, bus riders are slighly embarassed at their circumstance as I used to be when I took this mode of transport exclusively. I don't feel the least bit that way when I'm utility cycling but try explaining that to most people and they'll think your crazy.

I think you are correct, Dahon.Steve. There is a negative image of folks who ride the bus. By the same token, there is some stigma about folks who bicycle too, but it isn't all bad.

I agree with the general concensus that the article was poorly researched. But, the discussion about it on this forum brings up so many valid questions and points. Like, why is suburban development still so car-centric? I wouldn't ever choose to live in a suburban location that doesn't provide adequate pedestrian amenities, which makes it unlikely for me to ever live in a suburb built with the principles of today. Also, why doesn't the department of transportion, when planning mass transit amenities in suburban areas, develop with all forms of access in mind (biking, pedestrian, and auto)? Oh, and there are so many more things...

I agree with the general concensus that the article was poorly researched. But, the discussion about it on this forum brings up so many valid questions and points. Like, why is suburban development still so car-centric? I wouldn't ever choose to live in a suburban location that doesn't provide adequate pedestrian amenities, which makes it unlikely for me to ever live in a suburb built with the principles of today. Also, why doesn't the department of transportion, when planning mass transit amenities in suburban areas, develop with all forms of access in mind (biking, pedestrian, and auto)? Oh, and there are so many more things...

I think the reason that most cities grow to accomodate personal automobiles and neglect public transportation is because that is where the demand is. Out side of the MAJOR cities (specifically New York and Los Angeles), buses run nearly empty all the time. In our city, you have these HUGE busses with only two or three people in them most of the time. Often, they run empty. Looking at the ridership, they would be better off driving people around in Corvettes. Corvettes could handle all the ridership demand and save money over the big busses.

So, as a taxpayer, I was irked when the city sunk a ton of money into improving the bus system here. It did make the busses cleaner and the whole system more tidy. However, it did NOT improve ridership. It would have been cheaper for the city to pay all the taxi companies to provide free transportation for everybody.

Bicycle enthusiasts on this forum understand the great advantages of moving away from automobiles. Heck, even many people who drive alone in big SUV's understand their negative and costly impact. Still, bicyclists, pedestrians, and public transport users are on the very outer fringe and very much in the minority in the USA. If you believe in "Power to the People", then you would have to agree with building cities to accomodate automobiles.

Not only is cycling to work cheaper than by car OR Metro, but it's also faster. My 14 mile each-way commute takes between 1:05 to 1:15 mins between the DC-MD line through downtown DC to Northern Virginia depending on my legs, which bike I'm riding, the temperature, and the red lights. Metro regularly takes 1 hour 30 minutes (I have to take two busses and two trains). Driving can take as little as 45 minutes and I've been stuck in traffic for as long as 3 hours on my way home! Plus if I drive, I have to move my car every 2 hours...15 mins each time...essentially doubling the best time for driving.

Cycling makes me happy. Driving makes my angry. Metro makes me frustrated waiting(although I do like to work on the crossword puzzle).

Too bad the article didn't consider the whole story.

Last year I drove a Honda Accord to and from work all year long and on a few long trips. ..... Cost:$4146

Sounds plausible.

I've spent about $650 on stuff for bicycling-as-transportation in the last 3 and a half years. (also used other people's cars a little and some buses and trains, bringing the total realistically to $1200 or so.)

I think the reason that most cities grow to accomodate personal automobiles and neglect public transportation is because that is where the demand is. Out side of the MAJOR cities (specifically New York and Los Angeles), buses run nearly empty all the time.

Often that's because the whole equation isn't taken into account. You can't just put more busses on the road, you have to build neighborhoods that make it easy to get to the bus stops, and decent sidewalks, etc. Transportation and land use are linked.

Out side of the MAJOR cities (specifically New York and Los Angeles), buses run nearly empty all the time. In our city, you have these HUGE busses with only two or three people in them most of the time. Often, they run empty.
You need to get out more. Portland, Oregon has had a lot of success with their transit system, both busses and trains. I think Seattle is catching up, their busses were well-used in the late 70s, they are working on upgrading the system with light rail and/or monorail service, but I think they are having political and financial difficulties doing so. San Francisco has commuter rail that works, and also a large bicycling population. People ride the trains in Chicago and Boston, too.

Europe has great train service, both regional and local, and it's cheaper - sometimes significantly cheaper - to ride the trains in Barcelona or Paris than it is in New York or Portland. Yes, the European rail systems are subsidized, but IMO, that's the way it should be. In the US, generally only roads and driving are subsidized, makes for a rather uneven playing field.

Denver's transit system is also fairly popular. Buses to and from downtown are almost always full or close to it. Our system is moving away from a hub and spoke design using buses as the hub and spokes. The final result will be a system using light rail as a hub and buses as the spokes. Our existing light rail line is quite popular. People are generally crammed into the train cars during peak times and peak directions.

I'm from New Jersey and use the transit systems in New York city. I can tell you for a fact that public tranisit is used all the time in both states. Trains in NJ are packed with passengers in a state that is very suburban. Look at the Houston light rail? They built a billion dollar Lightrail system in the middle of a highway town but it's become one of the most successful systems in the country.

In the US, generally only roads and driving are subsidized......

Really? How so?

Incidentally, the federal government subsidizes mass transit projects. Our large highway upgrade contains a chunk of money for our light rail construction.

Capital construction of light rail systems does get federal money, but only if you design a system, apply for the funding and build it. In contrast to roads, there is generally no further federal money for operations and maintenance of the rail system once the original federal outlay for construction is made, unless the local gov't supports the rail system, they are generally expected to pay their way through fares, I believe.

Suburbanites often believe city buses run empty all the time. I think that's because they tend to see the buses when they are close to the suburban ends of their routes, where most of the passengers have already gotten off (or not gotten on yet). On established routes during peak hours, city buses are often standing room only.

Some people are entirely unaware that city bus service exists in their communities, even when they live right on bus routes. I'll cite two personal experiences. Earlier this year I was visiting with my brother. He claimed that his medium size West Texas city had no bus service and that all the buses had been scrapped. Less than a minute later, a city bus turns right in front of us at an intersection. On a different trip, a cousin in Tulsa told me there was no bus service there. Turned out she lived one block away from a city bus stop, it just never registered in her mind.

cute

This is quite an interesting statement. I mean if you only include the money that is obivous necessary for gas and repairs, then you get a different figure then one that you can caluculate for depreciation, health, opportunity cost (time used to transit and maintain the item). So what is the conclusion of the matter, you must make decisions in as big a picture as possible. If not, then one can incur more costs than one anticipated. So, does it bring an end to the agruement: which is cheaper communting via car or bus/train? No, since this is a decision that must be made by each person when he or she comes to it. I know commuting by bike is cheaper for me than transit by bus or train, but that is only true for me now.

Suburbanites often believe city buses run empty all the time. I think that's because they tend to see the buses when they are close to the suburban ends of their routes, where most of the passengers have already gotten off (or not gotten on yet). On established routes during peak hours, city buses are often standing room only.


Agreed.

New York City buses are empty by the time they arrive at the end of the route. As the bus get to 42nd street, it's standing room only and this is especially true during rush hour. The Lightrail I take is empty by the last stop and full after just making three stops on the line.