Reasons 1, 2 and 3 why we need transit!

This article in the LA Times got me thinking…

I generally enjoy reading about transportation related issues, it’s fun seeing all the different perspectives, people who have ‘evidence’ that transit saves money smash their heads against people who have ‘evidence’ that it costs money. Everything costs money, get over it. All transportation is subsidized, congratulations. Being a spectator is fun, but only because at the end of the day those arguments are worthless. Why? Because in the end, cost isn’t what really matters, safety and quality of life are more important. With that in mind, Houston, please consider the three biggest reasons we need transit, reasons virtually nobody talks about.

REASON #1: DRIVING IS NOT, HAS NEVER BEEN, AND WILL NEVER BE SAFE.

Please think for one moment about the most lamented tragedies in recent US history. Hurricane Katrina? The September 11 attacks? Tragic, absolutely tragic, things that absolutely galvanize us and mobilize us to say, “Never again. We must act, we must not let this happen again.”

At least 2,974 people died in the 9/11 attacks, at least 1,836 in Hurricane Katrina. Tragic. Every American took pause in the face of those two tragedies, made an effort to honor those who were lost and those left behind. Collectively as a country we took drastic action in response to those to tragedies to respond, and to eliminate or dramatically reduce the possibility of them recurring.

41,059 Americans died in car accidents last year.

Where is the national outrage? That’s almost 10x the number of fatalities from 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina combined! Where is the call to action?! Or, how about the more obvious question: where is the awareness?

Want to find a similar casualty count? Try the Vietnam war. In total 58,217 US armed service men and women died in Vietnam. Appropriately, there is tremendous national awareness and sadness at the human cost of that war. The Vietnam war lasted 16 years.

In the last 16 years, over 640,000 Americans have died in car accidents.

Since 1950 the US has averaged about 42,000 deaths in automobile accidents per year. That means…

More that 2,436,000 Americans have died in car accidents since 1950.

We could keep going, but you get the idea. Want some good news? Fewer people die when roads are more congested. Check out this report from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. The big news is fatalities have been declining slightly since 1980. Not coincidentally this is the same period when traffic congestion has increased the most dramatically in the US.

A British Scholar, R.J. Smeed, actually came up with a formula to describe this phenomenon, called “Smeed’s Law.” Based on data for over 20 countries, the conclusion was that the only thing that improves traffic safety is traffic congestion and the slow driving that comes with it. Not a shock, really. The faster you drive the more likely you are to die.

Why does this matter? Geography. Our cities are spread out, and we need speed to make them function economically.

Reason #2: THERE WILL ALWAYS BE A VERY LARGE PERCENTAGE OF AMERICANS UNABLE TO DRIVE

Who are these people, why can’t they drive? Try everyone under 16 for starters. The LA Times article I mentioned at the beginning of this post suggests raising the driving age to 18 to reduce traffic fatalities. They acknowledge that this would be very unpopular…

particularly with teenagers and maybe even more so with their parents, who long to end their period of indentured servitude as chauffeurs

Indentured serviture, EXACTLY! One cannot FUNCTION as an adult in this country without a car! But, parent’s cope. It’s the American way, right?

This increasing momentum to raise the driving age is backed by some solid research. USA Today wrote a good article about this a few years ago… basically they demonstrate that the brain function in 16 year olds is sufficiently less developed in critical regions to justify raising the driving age to at least 18.

Meanwhile, on the other side of the spectrum, this report from the APTA explains that 1/5 of Americans over 65 choose not to drive because they don’t believe they can do it safely. And those who choose to drive anyway are more and more likely to die in car crashes as they age.

If you take the Census 2000 data on population and assume that nobody under 16 or over 85 is (or should be) driving, that leaves about 27% of the US unable to drive.

If you take the ever emerging research that people under 18 and over 65 are at extremely high risk when driving, that leaves 38.1% of the US either unable to drive or at extremely high risk when driving.

Those are census 2000 numbers, as we all know the demographics of the country are changing, and the senior age groups (65+) are the fastest growing population segments in the country.

REASON #3: DRIVING ALWAYS HAS BEEN AND ALWAYS WILL BE EXTREMELY EXPENSIVE

Cars are expensive. AAA says:

Ever wonder how much you’re really paying to drive your car every year?

$9,641
That’s how much a person driving a medium sedan 15,000 miles a year can expect to pay, excluding loan payments.
In coming up with the estimates below, AAA figures in average fuel, routine maintenance, tires, insurance, license and registration, loan finance charges and depreciation costs. Fuel prices are based on late-2006 national averages.
AAA has been conducting this annual analysis since 1950. That year, driving a car 10,000 miles annually cost 9 cents a mile, and gasoline sold for 27 cents per gallon.

That’s for one car.

Consider that about 7% of US households EARN LESS THAN $10,000 PER YEAR. Another 17% make between $10,000 and $25,000 per year, for a total of about 24% of the US earning less than $25,000 per year.

The median household income in the US is about $50,000, and the average cost to own two cars (so Mom and Dad can both be adults) is about $20,000.

Moreover, that money is COMPLETELY GONE. It’s invested in a rapidly depreciating asset that literally burns your money out the tail pipe. People who aren’t chained to the machine can reap a huge financial benefit. This report, released last week, estimates that people using public transit to commute to and from work are saving about $9,500 a year, nationwide.

People in a transit-oriented could be investing their money in PROPERTY. Acquiring appreciating or stable long term investments is the key to wealth accumulation. Cars are basically anti-wealth machines.

Now, for those of you who argue about what transit costs per passenger, and so on and so forth, I have a question for you: WHO CARES???

The current US transportation system requires citizens to pay a fortune and risk their lives each day, become fully dependent on others for mobility, or withdraw to the margins of society.

THAT is why we need a multi-modal transportation system. THAT is why the cost per passenger mile is a load of crock.

If we could transition every city in America to a multi-modal transportation system where the average family could reasonably choose to own only ONE car instead of TWO, we would be pumping about $10,000 per year per family into the economy. Now *THAT’S* a stimulus package!

 

Oh, and tens of thousands of people would be pumping even more into the economy by not dying.

 
 

I know the problem that everyone brings up is, “but it’s too late! we’re car dependent and we can’t go back now!” That’s crock. We can rebuild our cities to go back to multi-modal transporation just as easily as we built them to be car-dependent. The only question is when do we start?

Now please, continue arguing about whether busses are greener than Priuses. I don’t care. The arguement you’re not having is the one that will eventually win.

Posted: Wednesday, September 10th, 2008 at 11:21 am
Categories: move
Tags: AAA, APTA, bus, car crashes, census, commuter rail, cost, death, demographics, drive, drivers, economy, elderly, expensive, fatalities, Houston, light-rail, population, stiumulus package, traffic accidents, transit, transportation, USA, young
Share:

Share and Enjoy:

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
•