Transportation | May 22, 2008 |
Mass Transit: Not for Everyone
That can be the case in trying to sell people on riding mass transit instead of driving. I have been working out of our San Francisco office all week, happily getting around the city without a car. I've been walking or talking public transit everywhere because it is cheaper, easier, and more sustainable.
Yesterday, however, I needed to go to Santa Clara (about 45 miles south of the City) for a conference, and decided to stay green and take mass transit. It took me 3 hours at a cost of $9.75 using a combination of subway, train and light rail. Compare that to about 50 minutes and $5 or so for gas (even at California prices) to drive.
As much as I support mass transit, there are limits to human endurance. We shouldn't point a sancitmonious finger at cars on the highway because the driver isn't on a bus or train if there isn't a mass transit option that can get them there in a reasonable amount of time.
Mass transit needs to provide a competitive quality of service if it is to be widely adopted. Urban planners have to keep this in mind when designing and funding mass transit systems -- do it well or don't do it. For example, trains and buses shouldn't have to stop at every block or quarter mile during rush our. We need to optimizine the schedules so that the greatest number of people can get to the their destination quickly. For more people to ride, many routes need to include express trains/or buses.
In theory mass transit is a great sustainable alternative to driving (like over the Bay area bridges), and in many cases it is. But if getting from point A to B is a grossly time consuming and expensive hassle, it's hard to argue with people who prefer to get behind the wheel.
How much would you be willing to extend your commute in order to travel sustainably? 30 percent? 50 percent? 75 percent?
Reddit
Digg
Stumble
ShareThis
Comments By Readers
Public transportation works very cost effectively for REPEAT trips, but not so well for one-time routes. So, maybe the solution is variety: Special lanes for alt fuel vehicles, bike lanes, and special express trains/buses for longer distances.
John,
While your point about the time to travel on mass transit vs the time to drive sounds reasonable, your assertion that it only costs you $5 to drive (you don't mention whether that is your round trip or one way cost) is misleading.
If you are driving a recent model car, the costs of driving are about fifty cents a mile. To drive 90 miles round trip would actually cost you $45, not $5. If you're only traveling one way your real driving cost would be at least $22.50.
It is easy to overlook the real out-of-pocket costs of driving if you only focus on the price of gas. Remember, that for every mile you drive, you are wearing out your tires, your brakes, your engine, etc, not to mention the cost of insurance and car payments.
Len Conly
My thoughts were the same as Len's. My employer currently reimburses me when I have to drive at 58 cents/mile. At 90 miles, that's a real cost of $52, or approximatly $42 more than mass transit. However, let's look at the cost of the travelers time too! Driving 45 miles, some of it in SF traffic. Let's assume this is off-peak and it only takes 1 hour. That's a 2 hour saving from mass transit. $42 for 2 hours = $21/hr. I'm guessing that you get paid more than that (and that your employer, if you were travelling during work hours, pays much more). If you were able to get any productive work done on the train/bus/etc., it seems like this would be the preference for the employer. If you are travelling on your own time, I guess you need to cipher if $20/hr. is a decent wage to pay yourself.
Post Your Comment