[Whoaccio]

I don't really see why people get upset at this stuff. Its true. The subject isn't even really debatable. Public transit operations here are horrendously inefficient. Its not "an attack on transit" to suggest that long term productivity declines and cost increase are symptoms of poor management. I don't get what drives 'supporters' of public transit to always oppose basic economic logic, that the systemically poor management of public transit only decreases its attractiveness.

 

[EnviroTO]

I wouldn't mind seeing the TTC run more like a business, where the TTC is an agency which focuses on transit planning and standards while tendering out the rest. I don't expect the TTC to break even though. It seems obvious that the TTC is inefficient by not automating more.

However, almost every comparison between transit and private transportation I have seen is flawed, especially post airline bankruptcies and auto bailouts where debt magically disappears. Without two comparable balance sheets you can't compare the costs and a true comparison would factor in infrastructure, environment and health, cost of time wasted, vehicle cost, energy costs, land costs, etc. I have never seen such a report and if anyone has a link to one let me know because that would be worth reading.

I know that road infrastructure eats up a lot more land than transit. That vehicles with less occupants tend to consume more energy per occupant. That sharing the costs of vehicle with others when not using it reduces the cost of that vehicle to each person. Time is certainly wasted when you need to go to a transfer point rather than direct to your destination. In terms of environment and health there are certainly more injuries and deaths in personal vehicles than in public transit per person km, and a form of transportation with less energy consumption per user would lead to less pollution which harms the environment and health. I'm not sure which type of infrastructure costs more per person... obviously infrastructure which carries more and lasts longer costs more is more expensive in total but how that breaks down to a person.km cost averaged out over the life of the infrastructure including maintenance is another question.

 

[Whoaccio]

However, almost every comparison between transit and private transportation I have seen is flawed, especially post airline bankruptcies and auto bailouts where debt magically disappears. Without two comparable balance sheets you can't compare the costs and a true comparison would factor in infrastructure, environment and health, cost of time wasted, vehicle cost, energy costs, land costs, etc. I have never seen such a report and if anyone has a link to one let me know because that would be worth reading.

That's a weird thing to say considering that public transit projects are almost always 100% subsidizes in terms of capital costs. Its one thing to say that 'debt magically disappears' from the private sector, but as far as I know the TTC has never bothered to even put debt (& debt charges) on in its balance sheets in the first place.

Anyways, I suggest you read the Transport Canada report on the 'full costs' of transportation. On the section for urban transit:

In all cases without the cost of parking, financial cost per passengers would be comparable only for single occupancy light vehicle. If parking costs were included in the total costs analysis, the occupancy would have to be approximately two persons by personal vehicle to have comparable cost to the public service per person (assuming all light vehicle users would share the cost equally).

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Whoaccio:

Public transit operations here are horrendously inefficient.

Public transit operations anywhere tend to be horrendously inefficient on purely economic terms.

In all cases without the cost of parking, financial cost per passengers would be comparable only for single occupancy light vehicle. If parking costs were included in the total costs analysis, the occupancy would have to be approximately two persons by personal vehicle to have comparable cost to the public service per person (assuming all light vehicle users would share the cost equally).

I am curious as to how the methodology accounts for the exponential increase in infrastructure/social/environmental cost (if it is at all physically possible) that is required to handle peak traffic in say, an automobile-only mode at the exclusion of other modes. Say in the case of Toronto, what happens if all public transit users switch to a single mode - i.e. cars - what would be the public AND private costs required to accomodate that change? That's a far better indicator of the economic value of public transit.

AoD

 

[EnviroTO]

The table he quoted did not yet include social costs but even without social costs Montreal has a transit system which is cheaper per passenger than the car. For Table 13-4:

Congestion delays that were estimated to totalize $5.17 billion in the year 2000, are the main cost element for individual light vehicle usage in all major cities. Since adding social costs to financial costs reverses the order of modes in many cities (urban transit and commuter rail become cheaper), this is an indication that charging full cost of modal choice could have an impact on that decision if relative price plays a role in that decision.

 

[EnviroTO]

That study shows transit costing $13.73 per passenger in Toronto as compared to $12.39 for cars prior to addition of social costs and parking (which is a component of land cost). After adding social costs the numbers were $14.19 per passenger for transit and $24.58 for the car (prior to parking). So without adding social costs cars are only marginally better (worse in Montreal) but after adding land costs (parking is a component of that), transit always wins, and after adding social costs cars aren't even close.

 

[Whoaccio]

That study shows transit costing $13.73 per passenger in Toronto as compared to $12.39 for cars prior to addition of social costs and parking (which is a component of land cost). After adding social costs the numbers were $14.19 per passenger for transit and $24.58 for the car (prior to parking). So without adding social costs cars are only marginally better (worse in Montreal) but after adding land costs (parking is a component of that), transit always wins, and after adding social costs cars aren't even close.

That's what I said, or quoted rather. With an average occupancy of 1.8, light road vehicles are generally comparable with with public transit including parking. The 'full social cost measures' also is slightly biased against light passenger vehicles. Congestion is 'the main cost element' of car travel's social costs. While clearly real, congestion is measured by the opportunity costs of lost time. It would clearly be biased to consider the lost value of time of car use while failing to consider the lost value of time typically associated with public transit. Even then though, cars planes and (especially) buses always beat out rail in 'full costs' of intercity passenger travel.

Anyways, the reason I posted this study wasn't to prove anything is better than anything else. That wasn't the point of the study, hence the inclusion of this disclaimer:

Due to the complexity of the task of developing estimates of the full costs of transportation, the focus was placed on the “costs†of transportation only. Therefore, "benefits" associated to transportation were out of the scope of the work done. The “benefits†of transportation are real and important to society. It would be a mistake to use the full cost estimates for decision–making purposes without factoring in the benefits generated by transportation.

I posted it because it largely answers your questions about the 'full cost' of various modes, and the simple answer is not much. At least not enough to justify behaving as though public transport is somehow incomparable to other methods.

Public transit operations anywhere tend to be horrendously inefficient on purely economic terms.

No, they aren't. Most groups whose prime activity is to move people don't operate inefficiently.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Whoaccio:

Most groups whose prime activity is to move people don't operate inefficiently

And on what basis would you make this assertion that somehow most other locale are more "efficient" - operating cost/rider? Rate of public subsidy/rider, etc.?

AoD

 

[Whoaccio]

And on what basis would you make this assertion that somehow most other locale are more "efficient" - operating cost/rider? Rate of public subsidy/rider, etc.?

Easy, we don't subsidize WestJet directly to travel from Toronto to Vancouver, yet there is an almost unchallenged assumption that driving a bus a few km down a road is somehow not just impossible to break even on, but ruinously damaging to the public.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Whoacio:

Easy, we don't subsidize WestJet directly to travel from Toronto to Vancouver, yet there is an almost unchallenged assumption that driving a bus a few km down a road is somehow not just impossible to break even on, but ruinously damaging to the public.

Apples and oranges - Westjet as a private entity is under no obligation to provide any services at any locale at any time that doesn't generate a profit; public transit by its' very nature has to provide some level services at a regular interval at varous locations even if they aren't very cost effective. Now, individual bus routes can potentially be profitable, but at a system level with these demands? Not very likely, in the North American context of relatively low density, etc.

AoD

 

[nfitz]

To get back on topic. Brad has tweeted that City Council passed the extra funding. We will have our streetcars! Looks like it took until 4:30 pm; took all day, they started at 10 AM.

Hopefully someone is left at the city to issue the contract before midnight!

 

[W. K. Lis]

Now the contract between the City of Toronto and Bombardier can be officially signed. Don't know who the executives will be doing the authorized signing in this streetcar contract. Hope it is soon and they haven't forgotten the papers.

 

[kEiThZ]

^ Great news. It works out in the end!

 

[Automation Gallery]

^ Great news. It works out in the end!

I guess.........they will just have to Steal from Peter to pay Paul.

 

[khris]

Apparently it cost $20,000 to rent the convention centre for them to have this meeting. Could they not have had a meeting somewhere cheaper?