3 ms·

> Even more generally, rail service is subsidized, on a per-passanger-mile basis, about an order of magnitude more than automobiles. Only if you completely ign

by hannob 7y ago

> Even more generally, rail service is subsidized, on a per-passanger-mile basis, about an order of magnitude more than automobiles. Only if you completely ignore carbon emissions and other externalities.

rayiner 7y ago
No. Congestion, pollution, accident, and climate change externalities add up to about $0.10 per passenger mile: https://media.rff.org/archive/files/sharepoint/WorkImages/Download/RFF-DP-06-26.pdf https://media.rff.org/archive/files/sharepoint/WorkImages/Do... (p. 14). That's vastly more than the $0.01-0.02 direct subsidy for cars from road construction/maintenance, but much lower than the $0.87-0.90 per mile subsidy for transit: https://ti.org/antiplanner/?p=15144; https://ti.org/antiplanner/?p=15144; https://www.newgeography.com/content/005596-reason-1-end-transit-subsidies-it-s-most-costly-transportation-we-have https://www.newgeography.com/content/005596-reason-1-end-tra.... And of course--those pollution externalities can be greatly reduced by switching to electric cars.
- rayiner 7y ago
  EDIT: I don't really understand the downvotes. Nobody seriously disputes that, on a per-passenger mile basis, transit is more heavily subsidized than driving. The $0.10-0.20 per mile calculation of externalities from driving is well supported. For example, the Freakonomics authors calculate $0.10 per mile for externalities: https://www.treehugger.com/cars/pay-as-you-drive-payd-insurance-a-way-to-address-negative-externalities.html https://www.treehugger.com/cars/pay-as-you-drive-payd-insura... > With roughly three trillion miles driven each year producing more than $300 billion in externality costs, drivers should probably be taxed at least an extra 10 cents per mile if we want them to pay the full societal cost of their driving. Meanwhile, the subsidies of public transit systems are easy to calculate from public sources: https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/30030.pdf https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/300... In 2014 the D.C. Metro spent about $1.35 billion on rail and collected about $600 million, leaving a net subsidy of $750 million. WMATA customers travelled 1.5 billion passenger miles on rail, resulting in a net subsidy of $0.50 per passenger mile. Even without accounting for the pollution externalities of Metro (which are significant, most electricity on the east coast still comes from coal and natural gas), that's a much higher subsidy than for cars.
  - trophycase 7y ago
    Do these calculations also include things like mandatory parking minimums, parking lots, etc? IMO the big problem with cars is how they ruin city layout and are generally poor for land use
    - rayiner 7y ago
      You can include lots of things but then you’re getting into pretty subjective territory. There are advantages to nice walkable streets, for sure. But there are also advantages to being able to pull right up to your destination and park, instead of schlepping half a mile from a subway to hour final destination in heat, humidity, rain, etc. The study I cited above puts parking costs at 3-10 cents per vehicle mile, which still doesn’t being the driving subsidy near the transit subsidy.

by hannob 7y ago

rayiner 7y ago

No. Congestion, pollution, accident, and climate change externalities add up to about $0.10 per passenger mile: https://media.rff.org/archive/files/sharepoint/WorkImages/Download/RFF-DP-06-26.pdf https://media.rff.org/archive/files/sharepoint/WorkImages/Do... (p. 14). That's vastly more than the $0.01-0.02 direct subsidy for cars from road construction/maintenance, but much lower than the $0.87-0.90 per mile subsidy for transit: https://ti.org/antiplanner/?p=15144; https://ti.org/antiplanner/?p=15144; https://www.newgeography.com/content/005596-reason-1-end-transit-subsidies-it-s-most-costly-transportation-we-have https://www.newgeography.com/content/005596-reason-1-end-tra.... And of course--those pollution externalities can be greatly reduced by switching to electric cars.

rayiner 7y ago
EDIT: I don't really understand the downvotes. Nobody seriously disputes that, on a per-passenger mile basis, transit is more heavily subsidized than driving. The $0.10-0.20 per mile calculation of externalities from driving is well supported. For example, the Freakonomics authors calculate $0.10 per mile for externalities: https://www.treehugger.com/cars/pay-as-you-drive-payd-insurance-a-way-to-address-negative-externalities.html https://www.treehugger.com/cars/pay-as-you-drive-payd-insura... > With roughly three trillion miles driven each year producing more than $300 billion in externality costs, drivers should probably be taxed at least an extra 10 cents per mile if we want them to pay the full societal cost of their driving. Meanwhile, the subsidies of public transit systems are easy to calculate from public sources: https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/30030.pdf https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/300... In 2014 the D.C. Metro spent about $1.35 billion on rail and collected about $600 million, leaving a net subsidy of $750 million. WMATA customers travelled 1.5 billion passenger miles on rail, resulting in a net subsidy of $0.50 per passenger mile. Even without accounting for the pollution externalities of Metro (which are significant, most electricity on the east coast still comes from coal and natural gas), that's a much higher subsidy than for cars.
- trophycase 7y ago
  Do these calculations also include things like mandatory parking minimums, parking lots, etc? IMO the big problem with cars is how they ruin city layout and are generally poor for land use
  - rayiner 7y ago
    You can include lots of things but then you’re getting into pretty subjective territory. There are advantages to nice walkable streets, for sure. But there are also advantages to being able to pull right up to your destination and park, instead of schlepping half a mile from a subway to hour final destination in heat, humidity, rain, etc. The study I cited above puts parking costs at 3-10 cents per vehicle mile, which still doesn’t being the driving subsidy near the transit subsidy.