A thought on the "city" versus the "suburbs" of Dayton

[hensleya1]

Originally Posted by Amandarthegreat

Evidence shows that public transit use is currently the highest it's been since the 1960s and for every dollar put into public transit, $1.70 is put into the economy. In Dayton itself, a change in funding or cessation of funding will impact ~1000 jobs and remove $3.8 million from the local economy. http://www.apta.com/resources/report...investment.pdf Roads and sprawl are unsustainable and toxic. Nice dodge on the rest of it.

As a percentage of total miles traveled, transit is negligible. It has never made an appreciable dent in congestion, and still doesn't reach the massive majority of Americans, despite all taxpayers being forced to pony up to subsidize them.

Table 1-40: U.S. Passenger-Miles (Millions) | Bureau of Transportation Statistics

In 1980, the total number of passenger miles traveled that year was 2,884,130 (in millions). 39,854 million passenger miles were traveled by transit, and 2,653,510 by highways. In other words, transit accounted for 1.38% of all passenger miles traveled, and highways accounted for 92%. (Air travel accounted for most of the remainder.)

In 1982, Congress began raiding the highway trust fund to subsidize mass transit. Ever since then, 16% of all highway funding has been siphoned off to support pork barrel projects, to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars.

So what's the effect of all that spending?

In 2013, the total number of passenger miles traveled that year was 4,952,876. Transit accounts for 56,467, and highways have accounted for 4,306,717.

So what was the result of wasting 16% of our highway funding for 33 years?

The share of transit fell from 1.38% to 1.14%.

When you blow 16% of your infrastructure money on a program for 33 years and the share of miles traveled continues to fall over that time frame, you need to reexamine what you're wasting money on.

[Amandarthegreat]

Originally Posted by hensleya1

As a percentage of total miles traveled, transit is negligible. It has never made an appreciable dent in congestion, and still doesn't reach the massive majority of Americans, despite all taxpayers being forced to pony up to subsidize them.

Table 1-40: U.S. Passenger-Miles (Millions) | Bureau of Transportation Statistics

In 1980, the total number of passenger miles traveled that year was 2,884,130 (in millions). 39,854 million passenger miles were traveled by transit, and 2,653,510 by highways. In other words, transit accounted for 1.38% of all passenger miles traveled, and highways accounted for 92%. (Air travel accounted for most of the remainder.)

In 1982, Congress began raiding the highway trust fund to subsidize mass transit. Ever since then, 16% of all highway funding has been siphoned off to support pork barrel projects, to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars.

So what's the effect of all that spending?

In 2013, the total number of passenger miles traveled that year was 4,952,876. Transit accounts for 56,467, and highways have accounted for 4,306,717.

So what was the result of wasting 16% of our highway funding for 33 years?

The share of transit fell from 1.38% to 1.14%.

When you blow 16% of your infrastructure money on a program for 33 years and the share of miles traveled continues to fall over that time frame, you need to reexamine what you're wasting money on.

Yes, I know that attacking mass transit is the new Tea Party outrage, but urban hubs are the future and the backbone of the economy. For instance, look at Silicon Valley. Cities use buses, trains, and subways. It's just easier to move that many people around in an enclosed space by those methods. Investing in mass transit is investing in our future. Just remember, people like you were up in arms when Eisenhower started funneling federal funds into roads.

[SWOH]

Originally Posted by hensleya1

As a percentage of total miles traveled, transit is negligible. It has never made an appreciable dent in congestion, and still doesn't reach the massive majority of Americans, despite all taxpayers being forced to pony up to subsidize them.

Try telling that to Chicagoans!!

I don't have the time now for a detailed response, but I will say this - not everyone has the means to afford a reliable car.

And not owning a reliable car makes you an unreliable person in a car-centric society.

Fuse blew so you're late to work?
Too bad, you used up the one strike against you that you had.

Exhaust pipe fell off your car while you were driving?
Tough luck, here's a pink slip and good luck finding another job...... especially one you can walk to from your house because you don't have access to transportation.


If you live in someplace like Camden, OH (or even Hamilton, OH, a large city that entirely lacks public transportation) - that's the death knell. No choice but to file for welfare and hope and pray you can find a way to get reliable transportation so you can go to a new job, one where an employer will overlook a bad employment history.

Because how many jobs is it possible to actually walk to in this day and age? For 90% of people the answer is less than 20. For the majority the answer is a lot closer to zero.

[ohio_peasant]

Mass transit is essential for cities large enough to support a subway-system, which is to say a network of underground train-tracks connecting important destinations in the core-city amongst each other, with the inner suburbs. New York City would be impossible without a substantial subway system. Chicago would still be possible, but difficult. Los Angeles has at most a perfunctory rail system, and does tolerably well, horror-stories of traffic jams notwithstanding. DC has a good subway system for the urban core, but connection to its sprawling suburbs is poor.

The smaller the city, or the more dispersed its population, the worse the case for mass-transit. I support the general idea of recrudescence of the city, together with more urban amenities and better public transportation. I just don't support it in the Miami Valley. For reasons that I've mentioned, we're singularly ill-suited for public transportation.

[SWOH]

^Sure. And right now no one is arguing for more mass transit in Dayton, probably because we already have extensive electric trolleybus lines in place and the system works well.
New buses to better utilize this system are still in the process of being ordered if I understand correctly, and having the system in place should cut costs, especially if gas prices creep back up again.

What I understand hensleya1's argument to be is to cut ALL mass transit as a means of turning the US into part of some fantastical theoretical Tea Party paradise (feel free to correct me if this is not the case) where people who stumble once become poor, are ignored, get poorer and eventually become homeless bums and die because they have no way to get to a job, or family, or anyone that will give them a chance to make it.

And that doesn't work.
We as a nation cannot continue to squeeze mass transit.
Millions of people in this country rely on mass transit every day.


We need to continue to look towards more sustainable, more self-sufficient, more reliable, and more effective forms of transportation. Both as a nation and in industry we need to determine how to lower costs of transport and increase access.

And surprise!, it's not the Freedom Caucus that is leading the push here - it's automakers.
Automakers are leading the push, not Republican government, on building more fuel efficient engines that can run alternative forms of energy, more sustainable transport like foldable bikes, and even less transport altogether like ride sharing. Silicon Valley creations like Uber, Lyft, andZipCar are filling additional gaps.


But government can (and needs to) continue to push for lower transit costs for all.
And government needs to push for less transit too - after all, think of how many hours of productivity, collectively, are wasted by 100,000 people sitting for 30 minutes each in a traffic jam on I-75.

50,000 wasted man-hours. That's almost 6 collective years of life sat waiting in stop and go traffic, completely wasted, by society. Not to mention how many lives were shortened by the unfortunate people in the accident that caused the backup....

To put it simply, cars have been and should continue to be a luxury item.
Anything that costs more than a months' salary for a new, reliable version is a big ticket item luxury, plain and simple, to those who live paycheck to paycheck or worse.
And we need to figure out a way to make sure people aren't having to choose between buying soup at the grocery store for dinner and gas to fill their car to get to work for their 3-hr variable shift @ $7/hr the next day.