 |
Re: The Economics of Modal Mobility Consumption, Total Cost and Hidden User Side Subsidy Considerations
Author: BOB2
Date: 04-04-2021 - 15:06
What does it cost you per mile to operate your car, fuilly allocated? What does it cost to produce a transit seat mile, fully allocated? One is largely a "public" consumer good, the other is a "partially" private/partially "public" consumption good....
All of these are consumer choices in a "imperfect" competitive market for goods and services, especially unique "public goods", like roads, bridges, and even things like railways, where you will inherently have limited (imperfect market) mobility options and thus, and inherently limite set of consumer mobility choices.
There are many cross subsidies in life. Like when most of us get "so-called" "free parking"... Is it really free" And, is it "fair" to charge someone who didn't drive extra for your "free parking" at the grocery store? One old colleague down at UCI back in the 90's calculated that all public parking in the LA basin, added up to 27 spaces per vehicle (on street, driveway space, parking lots, parking structures) and accounted for over a quater of all urban land use. Now, at a cost of around $25,000 per space in land and improvement, mulitply that auto "subsidy" (required by that danged "gubmint" local zoning requirements).
Does your gas tax actually cover the cost of your roads? If you are light duty vehicle driver, probably, if you're a heavy duty vehicle, but that extra you may be paying for them, is getting you cheaper goods delivered to the grocery store... Yet, another "cross subsidy" trading off equity for efficiency and cheaper consumter goods (or so the trucking industry claims....)
What would it cost to put the same number of additonal person trip miles on the I-10, versus how much would it cost to provide the same number of passenger miles of capacity via a Coachella-IE-LA intercity and/or commute service? Do we widen the freeway...? Do we do it again in another 20 years? At what marginal cost per additional lane? Where do we park those auto trips when they arrive? How much more will that cost? Which will be cheaper at optimal operational build out and required investment level? By answering those questions, you basically know how one should do proper intermodal corridor alternative analysis planning, using multivariable cost benefit analysis.
In the realy world there is no free lunch, not even when it is a subsidized lunch. But, there are mostly imperfect markets conditions operating in the real world, in many of our mobility consumpton options, as well as in our mobility choices. And, we hide costs on lots of things that we consume, wiht hidden fees and subsidies, both public and private, because and usually when it is more efficient.
We have a lot of rail investments that have created of might create new more efficient mobility options, like Coachella Valley, or doubling ridership on LOSSAN... If the average freeway trip in the I-5 (LOSSAN) corridor is 20 miles, and the average rail trip is 60 miles, that is the equivalent of opening up space for 3 new vehicle trips on the existing capacity.
And, to our little troll... Did I get my wars wrong? Oooh you poor little thing..... Did you get off by correcting MY BAD BOB2- BAD ME? As that does appear to be the most important task in your day.... Still, I should be flattered....
Now, that I'm done with that argument, for the train haters... I get to go to a meeting this week where the "bike loonies" are apparently proposing to take a lane from a four lane bi directional major arterial with 45,000 daily trips, and squeeze those down to one lane each way, so they can put in a full dedicate bike lane... As if, 22,000 vehicle trips 90% local residents at 1.3 persons per vehicle will be magically replaced by 30,000 cyclists???? And, as it building a "traffic dam" blocking 22,000 trips daily will not back up traffic into the adjacent residential streets and parallel residential routes....
So, there's just as much ideological lunacy among this "we'll all cycle to nirvana" fringe, as there is with the "evil gubmint" ideological train haters... Maybe, it's just more proof that we took the lead out of gasoline, far too late...
All of these are consumer choices in a "imperfect" competitive market for goods and services, especially unique "public goods", like roads, bridges, and even things like railways, where you will inherently have limited (imperfect market) mobility options and thus, and inherently limite set of consumer mobility choices.
There are many cross subsidies in life. Like when most of us get "so-called" "free parking"... Is it really free" And, is it "fair" to charge someone who didn't drive extra for your "free parking" at the grocery store? One old colleague down at UCI back in the 90's calculated that all public parking in the LA basin, added up to 27 spaces per vehicle (on street, driveway space, parking lots, parking structures) and accounted for over a quater of all urban land use. Now, at a cost of around $25,000 per space in land and improvement, mulitply that auto "subsidy" (required by that danged "gubmint" local zoning requirements).
Does your gas tax actually cover the cost of your roads? If you are light duty vehicle driver, probably, if you're a heavy duty vehicle, but that extra you may be paying for them, is getting you cheaper goods delivered to the grocery store... Yet, another "cross subsidy" trading off equity for efficiency and cheaper consumter goods (or so the trucking industry claims....)
What would it cost to put the same number of additonal person trip miles on the I-10, versus how much would it cost to provide the same number of passenger miles of capacity via a Coachella-IE-LA intercity and/or commute service? Do we widen the freeway...? Do we do it again in another 20 years? At what marginal cost per additional lane? Where do we park those auto trips when they arrive? How much more will that cost? Which will be cheaper at optimal operational build out and required investment level? By answering those questions, you basically know how one should do proper intermodal corridor alternative analysis planning, using multivariable cost benefit analysis.
In the realy world there is no free lunch, not even when it is a subsidized lunch. But, there are mostly imperfect markets conditions operating in the real world, in many of our mobility consumpton options, as well as in our mobility choices. And, we hide costs on lots of things that we consume, wiht hidden fees and subsidies, both public and private, because and usually when it is more efficient.
We have a lot of rail investments that have created of might create new more efficient mobility options, like Coachella Valley, or doubling ridership on LOSSAN... If the average freeway trip in the I-5 (LOSSAN) corridor is 20 miles, and the average rail trip is 60 miles, that is the equivalent of opening up space for 3 new vehicle trips on the existing capacity.
And, to our little troll... Did I get my wars wrong? Oooh you poor little thing..... Did you get off by correcting MY BAD BOB2- BAD ME? As that does appear to be the most important task in your day.... Still, I should be flattered....
Now, that I'm done with that argument, for the train haters... I get to go to a meeting this week where the "bike loonies" are apparently proposing to take a lane from a four lane bi directional major arterial with 45,000 daily trips, and squeeze those down to one lane each way, so they can put in a full dedicate bike lane... As if, 22,000 vehicle trips 90% local residents at 1.3 persons per vehicle will be magically replaced by 30,000 cyclists???? And, as it building a "traffic dam" blocking 22,000 trips daily will not back up traffic into the adjacent residential streets and parallel residential routes....
So, there's just as much ideological lunacy among this "we'll all cycle to nirvana" fringe, as there is with the "evil gubmint" ideological train haters... Maybe, it's just more proof that we took the lead out of gasoline, far too late...
