Tuesday, July 06, 2004
Time to Replace Transit with Car Sharing?
Better, Lower Cost Mobility for Low-Income Households
In the U.S., we could provide cars for all travel by low-income transit riders for less than what we currently spend on transit subsidies. It would cost less than $10 billion to provide cars for all the transit riders who don’t have access to them, compared with annual spending of about $25 billion on transit subsidies.
A commercial model for such a program already exists. Around the world, anti-automobile activists have established “car-share” networks that allow people to have access to cars without having to own them. For example, “Flex-Car” in Portland provides cars for less than $0.30 per vehicle mile--a rate that includes the car, insurance, service, and fuel.
Today, car-sharing is seen as a substitute for car ownership. But its larger market may be to replace public transit systems.
Research by Steven Raphael and Michael Stoll of the University of California - Berkeley indicates nearly one-half of the unemployment rate gap between African-Americans and non-Hispanic whites would be eliminated if virtually all African-American workers (like non-Hispanic white workers) had cars.
Sounds like something worth thinking about.
In the U.S., we could provide cars for all travel by low-income transit riders for less than what we currently spend on transit subsidies. It would cost less than $10 billion to provide cars for all the transit riders who don’t have access to them, compared with annual spending of about $25 billion on transit subsidies.
A commercial model for such a program already exists. Around the world, anti-automobile activists have established “car-share” networks that allow people to have access to cars without having to own them. For example, “Flex-Car” in Portland provides cars for less than $0.30 per vehicle mile--a rate that includes the car, insurance, service, and fuel.
Today, car-sharing is seen as a substitute for car ownership. But its larger market may be to replace public transit systems.
Research by Steven Raphael and Michael Stoll of the University of California - Berkeley indicates nearly one-half of the unemployment rate gap between African-Americans and non-Hispanic whites would be eliminated if virtually all African-American workers (like non-Hispanic white workers) had cars.
Sounds like something worth thinking about.
Comments:
I took selected quotes from the article and commented on them.
>>>>The Fed report says it would be considerably cheaper to give a new Toyota Prius to each low-income rider of the St. Louis light rail line, and replace it with a new Prius every five years, than it is to operate that rail line.<<<<<
This will not happen because the Anti-Rail Republicans will consider this a "Welfare" program for Blacks and Hispanics thus blocking any such initiative. I'll stop taking the Lightrail when the government drops by my apartment with a brand new Prius. I won't hold my breath.
>>>But transit clearly is incapable of providing much mobility for the poor. For decades, virtually all new urban-area jobs (in the U.S. and throughout much of Europe and Canada) have been established in places that have little or no transit service.<<<<
Wrong. I live in the New York Metro area and there are plenty of jobs in the urban area. In fact, the highest paying jobs are those located right in New York City. Why all the morning gridlock in cities like Boston, New York, Los Angeles, Houston? Pretty Simple. JOBS!
>>>>Mobility is crucial to both affluence and prosperity. A person with a car can get to a job anywhere in a sprawling modern urban area, whether Portland, Phoenix, Perth, or Paris.<<<<<
Most the attorneys I work with are considered Affluent and prosperous and make over 100K a year. Yet, very few have automobiles. All take mass transit or a cab.
Affluence and prosepertiy is determined by education, career choice and savings. I know quite a few people with automobiles and are living pay check to pay check. If you have a job as a dishwasher or mail room clerk, it's highly unlikely you'll end up properous regardless of your automobile. Furthermore, if you have poor savings and spend every penny, you'll end up dead broke regardless of your motorised transport.
>>>>Research by Steven Raphael and Michael Stoll of the University of California - Berkeley indicates nearly one-half of the unemployment rate gap between African-Americans and non-Hispanic whites would be eliminated if virtually all African-American workers (like non-Hispanic white workers) had cars.<<<<<
I disagree.
What is holding back African-Americans and non-Hispanic whites is poor education and career choice. There are plenty of good paying jobs in Urban districts but African-Americans/Hispanics are not qualified for those positions.
In the law firm I work, we have positions in Litigation law but very few Blacks are qualifed for these positions which pay over 140K a year. They just don't have the skillset. Owning a car would not be enough to apply for these high paying jobs. Furthermore, opportunities for the low skilled will always be low paying regardless of location.
>>>>>>Today, car-sharing is seen as a substitute for car ownership. But its larger market may be to replace public transit systems. Flex-Car’s Web site offers packages that allow up to 3,000 miles per month for $700!<<<<
This is very expensive mode of transportation. A poor individual would not have have an extra $700.00 dollars per month to shell out for the Flex-Car when public transportation is but a fraction of this cost. In fact, my New York Metro Card is less than $100.00 dollars per month and I don't have to pay for parking which is quite costly in Manhattan or urban centers.
>>>>>What public purpose is served by a system that forces working poor and moderate-income taxpayers to subsidize high-income executives riding a commuter rail train from Fairfield County to Grand Central Station in New York, or from downtown Chicago to O’Hare International Airport? <<<<<
In New York City, mass transit serves all income classes. Every subway line will cross neighborhoods that are rich, middle-class and poor. The Long Island Rail road which rides into Grand Central Station stops in middle class and poor districts. This is the beauty of mass transit. It benefits both rich and poor.
>>>>>>>>>The principal jobs-housing imbalance in the modern American or European urban area is that so many jobs are concentrated in a small space in the core, while housing is widely dispersed. If more jobs were dispersed, traffic would be more manageable and less severe.<<<<<
This is nothing more than a dream. We will always have the urban area and it will never go away. Furthermore, the traffic situation will only get worse as the population gets larger and we are starting to see that today. Case in point. Jobs have dispersed by the thousands from cities and it did not improve the traffic situation at all.
>>>>The Fed report says it would be considerably cheaper to give a new Toyota Prius to each low-income rider of the St. Louis light rail line, and replace it with a new Prius every five years, than it is to operate that rail line.<<<<<
This will not happen because the Anti-Rail Republicans will consider this a "Welfare" program for Blacks and Hispanics thus blocking any such initiative. I'll stop taking the Lightrail when the government drops by my apartment with a brand new Prius. I won't hold my breath.
>>>But transit clearly is incapable of providing much mobility for the poor. For decades, virtually all new urban-area jobs (in the U.S. and throughout much of Europe and Canada) have been established in places that have little or no transit service.<<<<
Wrong. I live in the New York Metro area and there are plenty of jobs in the urban area. In fact, the highest paying jobs are those located right in New York City. Why all the morning gridlock in cities like Boston, New York, Los Angeles, Houston? Pretty Simple. JOBS!
>>>>Mobility is crucial to both affluence and prosperity. A person with a car can get to a job anywhere in a sprawling modern urban area, whether Portland, Phoenix, Perth, or Paris.<<<<<
Most the attorneys I work with are considered Affluent and prosperous and make over 100K a year. Yet, very few have automobiles. All take mass transit or a cab.
Affluence and prosepertiy is determined by education, career choice and savings. I know quite a few people with automobiles and are living pay check to pay check. If you have a job as a dishwasher or mail room clerk, it's highly unlikely you'll end up properous regardless of your automobile. Furthermore, if you have poor savings and spend every penny, you'll end up dead broke regardless of your motorised transport.
>>>>Research by Steven Raphael and Michael Stoll of the University of California - Berkeley indicates nearly one-half of the unemployment rate gap between African-Americans and non-Hispanic whites would be eliminated if virtually all African-American workers (like non-Hispanic white workers) had cars.<<<<<
I disagree.
What is holding back African-Americans and non-Hispanic whites is poor education and career choice. There are plenty of good paying jobs in Urban districts but African-Americans/Hispanics are not qualified for those positions.
In the law firm I work, we have positions in Litigation law but very few Blacks are qualifed for these positions which pay over 140K a year. They just don't have the skillset. Owning a car would not be enough to apply for these high paying jobs. Furthermore, opportunities for the low skilled will always be low paying regardless of location.
>>>>>>Today, car-sharing is seen as a substitute for car ownership. But its larger market may be to replace public transit systems. Flex-Car’s Web site offers packages that allow up to 3,000 miles per month for $700!<<<<
This is very expensive mode of transportation. A poor individual would not have have an extra $700.00 dollars per month to shell out for the Flex-Car when public transportation is but a fraction of this cost. In fact, my New York Metro Card is less than $100.00 dollars per month and I don't have to pay for parking which is quite costly in Manhattan or urban centers.
>>>>>What public purpose is served by a system that forces working poor and moderate-income taxpayers to subsidize high-income executives riding a commuter rail train from Fairfield County to Grand Central Station in New York, or from downtown Chicago to O’Hare International Airport? <<<<<
In New York City, mass transit serves all income classes. Every subway line will cross neighborhoods that are rich, middle-class and poor. The Long Island Rail road which rides into Grand Central Station stops in middle class and poor districts. This is the beauty of mass transit. It benefits both rich and poor.
>>>>>>>>>The principal jobs-housing imbalance in the modern American or European urban area is that so many jobs are concentrated in a small space in the core, while housing is widely dispersed. If more jobs were dispersed, traffic would be more manageable and less severe.<<<<<
This is nothing more than a dream. We will always have the urban area and it will never go away. Furthermore, the traffic situation will only get worse as the population gets larger and we are starting to see that today. Case in point. Jobs have dispersed by the thousands from cities and it did not improve the traffic situation at all.
Thank you for your comments.
I have responded to a few of your comments below.
>>>But transit clearly is incapable of providing much mobility for the poor. For decades, virtually all new urban-area jobs (in the U.S. and throughout much of Europe and Canada) have been established in places that have little or no transit service.<<<<
Wrong. I live in the New York Metro area and there are plenty of jobs in the urban area. In fact, the highest paying jobs are those located right in New York City. Why all the morning gridlock in cities like Boston, New York, Los Angeles, Houston? Pretty Simple. JOBS!
###WC: 80 percent of employment in the NYC area is outside Manhattan. Most such jobs are beyond the reach of automobile competitive transit. Traffic congestion is not limited to core areas. But, more importantly Manhattan is a huge exception. One needs to get out of town just bit to see reality.
###Basic problem with the comments, however, is the usual problem of projecting one’s experiences into societal conclusions. The world is not made up of 100K attorneys, most people do not work downtown and what how low income people might improve their employment status with cars cannot be deduced from mail room clerks in a Manhattan legal office.
>>>>Research by Steven Raphael and Michael Stoll of the University of California - Berkeley indicates nearly one-half of the unemployment rate gap between African-Americans and non-Hispanic whites would be eliminated if virtually all African-American workers (like non-Hispanic white workers) had cars.<<<<<
I disagree.
###On what basis? At least Raphael and Stoll didn’t make broad generalizations about the labor market based upon their personal experiences. They used demonstrated econometric methods.
>>>>>>Today, car-sharing is seen as a substitute for car ownership. But its larger market may be to replace public transit systems. Flex-Car’s Web site offers packages that allow up to 3,000 miles per month for $700!<<<<
This is very expensive mode of transportation. A poor individual would not have have an extra $700.00 dollars per month to shell out for the Flex-Car when public transportation is but a fraction of this cost. In fact, my New York Metro Card is less than $100.00 dollars per month and I don't have to pay for parking which is quite costly in Manhattan or urban centers.
###But we could afford to give them cars with the money we now spend on transit, and have a lot left over. We would subsidize greater opportunity for low incompe people.
>>>>>What public purpose is served by a system that forces working poor and moderate-income taxpayers to subsidize high-income executives riding a commuter rail train from Fairfield County to Grand Central Station in New York, or from downtown Chicago to O’Hare International Airport? <<<<<
In New York City, mass transit serves all income classes. Every subway line will cross neighborhoods that are rich, middle-class and poor. The Long Island Rail road which rides into Grand Central Station stops in middle class and poor districts. This is the beauty of mass transit. It benefits both rich and poor.
###How does one get from Perth Amboy to New Brunswick on the subway. The urban area stretches for miles and miles and barely 40 percent of it is in NYC.
>>>>>>>>>The principal jobs-housing imbalance in the modern American or European urban area is that so many jobs are concentrated in a small space in the core, while housing is widely dispersed. If more jobs were dispersed, traffic would be more manageable and less severe.<<<<<
This is nothing more than a dream. We will always have the urban area and it will never go away. Furthermore, the traffic situation will only get worse as the population gets larger and we are starting to see that today. Case in point. Jobs have dispersed by the thousands from cities and it did not improve the traffic situation at all.
###No one suggested getting rid of urban areas. Automobiles represent the overwhelming majority of travel in modern urban areas, including 90 percent in New York. An urban area better suited to automobiles will be better suited for a higher quality of life. As for well paid Manhattan executives --- they will always live well, regardless of urban form. But we need to look beyond our own personal experiences.
I have responded to a few of your comments below.
>>>But transit clearly is incapable of providing much mobility for the poor. For decades, virtually all new urban-area jobs (in the U.S. and throughout much of Europe and Canada) have been established in places that have little or no transit service.<<<<
Wrong. I live in the New York Metro area and there are plenty of jobs in the urban area. In fact, the highest paying jobs are those located right in New York City. Why all the morning gridlock in cities like Boston, New York, Los Angeles, Houston? Pretty Simple. JOBS!
###WC: 80 percent of employment in the NYC area is outside Manhattan. Most such jobs are beyond the reach of automobile competitive transit. Traffic congestion is not limited to core areas. But, more importantly Manhattan is a huge exception. One needs to get out of town just bit to see reality.
###Basic problem with the comments, however, is the usual problem of projecting one’s experiences into societal conclusions. The world is not made up of 100K attorneys, most people do not work downtown and what how low income people might improve their employment status with cars cannot be deduced from mail room clerks in a Manhattan legal office.
>>>>Research by Steven Raphael and Michael Stoll of the University of California - Berkeley indicates nearly one-half of the unemployment rate gap between African-Americans and non-Hispanic whites would be eliminated if virtually all African-American workers (like non-Hispanic white workers) had cars.<<<<<
I disagree.
###On what basis? At least Raphael and Stoll didn’t make broad generalizations about the labor market based upon their personal experiences. They used demonstrated econometric methods.
>>>>>>Today, car-sharing is seen as a substitute for car ownership. But its larger market may be to replace public transit systems. Flex-Car’s Web site offers packages that allow up to 3,000 miles per month for $700!<<<<
This is very expensive mode of transportation. A poor individual would not have have an extra $700.00 dollars per month to shell out for the Flex-Car when public transportation is but a fraction of this cost. In fact, my New York Metro Card is less than $100.00 dollars per month and I don't have to pay for parking which is quite costly in Manhattan or urban centers.
###But we could afford to give them cars with the money we now spend on transit, and have a lot left over. We would subsidize greater opportunity for low incompe people.
>>>>>What public purpose is served by a system that forces working poor and moderate-income taxpayers to subsidize high-income executives riding a commuter rail train from Fairfield County to Grand Central Station in New York, or from downtown Chicago to O’Hare International Airport? <<<<<
In New York City, mass transit serves all income classes. Every subway line will cross neighborhoods that are rich, middle-class and poor. The Long Island Rail road which rides into Grand Central Station stops in middle class and poor districts. This is the beauty of mass transit. It benefits both rich and poor.
###How does one get from Perth Amboy to New Brunswick on the subway. The urban area stretches for miles and miles and barely 40 percent of it is in NYC.
>>>>>>>>>The principal jobs-housing imbalance in the modern American or European urban area is that so many jobs are concentrated in a small space in the core, while housing is widely dispersed. If more jobs were dispersed, traffic would be more manageable and less severe.<<<<<
This is nothing more than a dream. We will always have the urban area and it will never go away. Furthermore, the traffic situation will only get worse as the population gets larger and we are starting to see that today. Case in point. Jobs have dispersed by the thousands from cities and it did not improve the traffic situation at all.
###No one suggested getting rid of urban areas. Automobiles represent the overwhelming majority of travel in modern urban areas, including 90 percent in New York. An urban area better suited to automobiles will be better suited for a higher quality of life. As for well paid Manhattan executives --- they will always live well, regardless of urban form. But we need to look beyond our own personal experiences.
Thank you for your response. I will now answer to some of your question.
###WC: 80 percent of employment in the NYC area is outside Manhattan. Most such jobs are beyond the reach of automobile competitive transit.
I don't believe this to be correct. The five boroughs of the New York Metro area have very good public transportation. If you look at the New York bus and rail map, you'll see lines extending 50 miles outside of Manhattan.
To be be fair, there are many jobs that are beyond the reach of public transit. An individual with good career choice, extensive experience, and a proper education will have little problem finding employment in New York City.
Personally, I've never needed to travel 50 miles into the burbs for work. There are plenty of good paying jobs in the city.
>>>>>###Basic problem with the comments, however, is the usual problem of projecting one’s experiences into societal conclusions. The world is not made up of 100K attorneys, most people do not work downtown and what how low income people might improve their employment status with cars cannot be deduced from mail room clerks in a Manhattan legal office.<<<<<<
I used some of my personal experience but we can discuss this matter in general if you like.
I wanted to make a point that there are hundreds of thousands of people (doctors,lawyers) who also benefit from taking mass transit to work each day. You're correct that the majority of people who work in this country do not do go downtown and thus need motorized transport. Fair enough.
You're policy of public transport elimination might work for a small town but would create chaos in a large metropolitan city.
>>>>>###On what basis? At least Raphael and Stoll didn’t make broad generalizations about the labor market based upon their personal experiences. They used demonstrated econometric methods.<<<<<
I'll give you my reasoning why blacks and hispanics are low paid and it has nothing to do with motor transport.
According to the Labor Deparment, the good paying jobs require a college degree or more and extensive skills that minorities do not possess. A motor car will not open the doors to higher paying jobs unless these skills are attained.
http://stats.bls.gov/ncs/ocs/sp/ncar0002.pdf
An article by USA Today stated only 8.3% of all Hispanic men have college degrees. Thus, the majortiy of Hispanic men are doomed to low paying jobs even if they somehow find a way to acquire motor transport.
In 1999, the average salary of someone with a bachelor's degree was $42,201 a year, compared with $33,430 for a two-year associate degree and $26,194 for a high school diploma, Census Bureau data show. The Census Bureau did NOT say the motor car was the reasoning for this higher salary. Almost every study done on the subject of poverty shows that education is the key to economic prosperity in this country.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2001-02-18-poorstudents.htm
>>>>>>>###But we could afford to give them cars with the money we now spend on transit, and have a lot left over. We would subsidize greater opportunity for low incompe people.<<<<<
I don't believe we can afford to give millions of low income hispanic men and women including blacks new cars every five years. There are many other variable costs involved such as insurance, gas, accidents, repairs, traffic tickets, parking and tolls that must be figured into the equation. It would never add up.
>>>>>>###How does one get from Perth Amboy to New Brunswick on the subway. The urban area stretches for miles and miles and barely 40 percent of it is in NYC.<<<<<<
You have a point. There is no way to get to Perth Amboy to New Brunswick on the subway. If you live in Perth Amboy, you would certainly need a motor car. I still hold onto my original statement that the policy of providing free a free motorcar for hundreds of millions of low income workers is nothing more than a welfare program.
Steve.
###WC: 80 percent of employment in the NYC area is outside Manhattan. Most such jobs are beyond the reach of automobile competitive transit.
I don't believe this to be correct. The five boroughs of the New York Metro area have very good public transportation. If you look at the New York bus and rail map, you'll see lines extending 50 miles outside of Manhattan.
To be be fair, there are many jobs that are beyond the reach of public transit. An individual with good career choice, extensive experience, and a proper education will have little problem finding employment in New York City.
Personally, I've never needed to travel 50 miles into the burbs for work. There are plenty of good paying jobs in the city.
>>>>>###Basic problem with the comments, however, is the usual problem of projecting one’s experiences into societal conclusions. The world is not made up of 100K attorneys, most people do not work downtown and what how low income people might improve their employment status with cars cannot be deduced from mail room clerks in a Manhattan legal office.<<<<<<
I used some of my personal experience but we can discuss this matter in general if you like.
I wanted to make a point that there are hundreds of thousands of people (doctors,lawyers) who also benefit from taking mass transit to work each day. You're correct that the majority of people who work in this country do not do go downtown and thus need motorized transport. Fair enough.
You're policy of public transport elimination might work for a small town but would create chaos in a large metropolitan city.
>>>>>###On what basis? At least Raphael and Stoll didn’t make broad generalizations about the labor market based upon their personal experiences. They used demonstrated econometric methods.<<<<<
I'll give you my reasoning why blacks and hispanics are low paid and it has nothing to do with motor transport.
According to the Labor Deparment, the good paying jobs require a college degree or more and extensive skills that minorities do not possess. A motor car will not open the doors to higher paying jobs unless these skills are attained.
http://stats.bls.gov/ncs/ocs/sp/ncar0002.pdf
An article by USA Today stated only 8.3% of all Hispanic men have college degrees. Thus, the majortiy of Hispanic men are doomed to low paying jobs even if they somehow find a way to acquire motor transport.
In 1999, the average salary of someone with a bachelor's degree was $42,201 a year, compared with $33,430 for a two-year associate degree and $26,194 for a high school diploma, Census Bureau data show. The Census Bureau did NOT say the motor car was the reasoning for this higher salary. Almost every study done on the subject of poverty shows that education is the key to economic prosperity in this country.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2001-02-18-poorstudents.htm
>>>>>>>###But we could afford to give them cars with the money we now spend on transit, and have a lot left over. We would subsidize greater opportunity for low incompe people.<<<<<
I don't believe we can afford to give millions of low income hispanic men and women including blacks new cars every five years. There are many other variable costs involved such as insurance, gas, accidents, repairs, traffic tickets, parking and tolls that must be figured into the equation. It would never add up.
>>>>>>###How does one get from Perth Amboy to New Brunswick on the subway. The urban area stretches for miles and miles and barely 40 percent of it is in NYC.<<<<<<
You have a point. There is no way to get to Perth Amboy to New Brunswick on the subway. If you live in Perth Amboy, you would certainly need a motor car. I still hold onto my original statement that the policy of providing free a free motorcar for hundreds of millions of low income workers is nothing more than a welfare program.
Steve.
Thank you for your comments and sources. We'll just have to disagree. The data on jobs is beyond dispute as it is from the primary source... the US census bureau.
As for low income people and cars, they dont need college degrees, though that would be nice. They need access to larger labor markets where there is the potential of a better job. A car can get you in virtually a 360 degree circle, where transit leaves you dependent on where it goes. I have no argument with the effectiveness of transit in NYC itself. Nearly 80 percent of people who take motorized transport to jobs in Manhattan use transit. It has an important place, but that place is very limited and focused. In virtually all urban areas of Canada, Oceania, the US and Western Europe now have the large majority of their jobs outside where transit provides auto competitive service. That is fine for the people who live in the high quality, but small transit service areas. Remy Prud'homme has shown that increasing mobility increases employment opportunity and the income of an urban area --- you may not believe it but that's ok.
But keep on thinking. It's good for all of us.
Best regards,
Wendell Cox
Post a Comment
As for low income people and cars, they dont need college degrees, though that would be nice. They need access to larger labor markets where there is the potential of a better job. A car can get you in virtually a 360 degree circle, where transit leaves you dependent on where it goes. I have no argument with the effectiveness of transit in NYC itself. Nearly 80 percent of people who take motorized transport to jobs in Manhattan use transit. It has an important place, but that place is very limited and focused. In virtually all urban areas of Canada, Oceania, the US and Western Europe now have the large majority of their jobs outside where transit provides auto competitive service. That is fine for the people who live in the high quality, but small transit service areas. Remy Prud'homme has shown that increasing mobility increases employment opportunity and the income of an urban area --- you may not believe it but that's ok.
But keep on thinking. It's good for all of us.
Best regards,
Wendell Cox
