To Drive or Not to Drive, That Is The Question: And The Correct Answer Is?

Printer-friendly versionSend to friend

By Alan Kandel

It’s a very interesting juxtaposition: On the one hand, “According to the American Public Transportation Association’s (APTA) January Transit Savings Report, individuals who ride public transportation instead of driving can save, on average, $816 dollars this month, and $9,790 annually. These savings are based on the cost of commuting by public transportation compared to the January 10, 2012 average national gas price ($3.34 per gallon- reported by AAA) and the national unreserved monthly parking rate.”

On the other hand, the Texas Transportation Institute in its “2011 Urban Mobility Report,” announced, “In 2010, congestion caused urban Americans to travel 4.8 billion hours more and to purchase an extra 1.9 billion gallons of fuel for a congestion cost of $101 billion.” This is fuel that needlessly went up in smoke. Coupled with this is time effectively thrown out the window and it’s money down the drain that perhaps otherwise could have been spent more productively (More on this in a moment).

As for those zero-emissions vehicle owners and drivers, they don’t exactly get away scot-free. There are vehicle, electricity, insurance, parking maintenance and repair costs to consider, all of which factor in to the overall operating equation. Neither are they completely exempt from the same congestion and gridlock others aren’t exempt from.

The APTA also revealed, “The 2011 Urban Mobility Report makes clear that without public transportation services, travelers would have suffered an additional 796 million hours of delay and consumed 303 million more gallons of fuel. Had there been no public transportation service available in the 439 urban areas studied, congestion costs for 2010 would have risen by nearly $17 billion from $101 to $118 billion.” Hours and dollars saved for America’s top 40 cities according to the amounts saved are shown in the APTA release.

Number 4 in rankings is the Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana region where a total of 33.606 million hours of delay were avoided and $708.8 million was saved from area citizens riding public transit. Also listed were San Francisco-Oakland (ranked 6th), which had corresponding savings of 28.431 million hours and $586.6 million respectively, and San Diego (ranked 13th) with 6.46 million hours and $136.3 million respectively saved. Meanwhile, San Jose (ranked 26th), Sacramento (ranked 30th) and Riverside-San Bernardino (ranked 35th), had a combined 4.403 million hours of delay and a corresponding $90.2 million, saved.

“People who use transit can often travel more efficiently, and with fewer emissions, than if they had driven instead,” insists Environment California’s Research & Policy Center in its “Getting California on Track: Seven Strategies to Reduce Global Warming Pollution from Transportation” report. “In addition, the presence of high-quality transit service in a community is correlated with reduced vehicle travel—the result of the more compact development patterns that often exist near transit stops and reduced vehicle ownership.”

Moreover, according to Environment California, “In 2006, California’s transit systems reduced global warming pollution by approximately 3.6 million metric tons of carbon dioxide—the equivalent of taking nearly 680,000 cars off the road.”

Be this as it may, some cities have the appearance of being more equal than others regarding the quality of public transportation options it offers.

“But for many Californians—even those living in the state’s largest and most densely populated urban areas—access to high-quality transit service is inconsistent or non-existent. The result is that many Californians have few choices for how they get to work, school or shopping—leaving them dependent on cars and resulting in greater than necessary emissions of global warming pollution,” Environment California reported. It’s all about balanced transportation or, at least, it ought to be.

As for money that could have been spent more productively, there is an irony here and that is, the money lost in America in 2010 on account of congestion, is almost identical to the projected cost of what it will take to build the first phase of California’s planned high-speed rail line – about $100 billion.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Alan Kandel is a concerned California resident advocating for new, improved and expanded freight (and passenger) rail service. He is a retired railroad signalman previously employed by the Union Pacific Railroad in Fremont, California.