And outside of New York City, it's a very small percentage of the population that doesn't take their car even on very short trips -- like going to work or to shop. This brings up an interesting question. In light of the rising gas prices (and environmental damage), is it possible to get Americans away from their cars -- especially the gasoline-powered cars?
The Gallup Poll recently examined that question in a nationwide survey taken May 12th through May 15th of 1,024 adults. The most interesting question they asked was would you be willing to do the following if the price of gasoline rose above $10 a gallon? The only option that people really had any interest in was buying a car that used less gas (but not an electric car). Here are the percentages who would NOT be willing to do the following:
Replace your car with one that gets better mileage...............38%
Use mass transit as your main source of transportation...............52%
Buy an electric car that could only go limited miles at a time...............57%
Move closer to the places you drive to most often...............69%
Change jobs or quit working...............72%
Looking at these numbers it's easy to see why mass transit and electric cars (at least the current versions) have not been able to gain much traction in most of the country. Americans live driving their gasoline-powered cars, and majorities will continue to do that if gas rises to above $10 a gallon. The most a majority would be willing to do is get a more efficient car.
This is a good argument for the current government position of putting most of their conservation efforts into making gas-powered cars more efficient. It's also a good argument for making the auto industry step up that efficiency far more than they have currently been required to do.
I am one of those who would like to see more available mass transportation -- especially things like bullet trains. But while mass transportation has been successful in other countries, a poll like this makes me wonder if people in the United States want or would use such transportation in the numbers required to make it worthwhile.
The big issue is that mass transit anywhere other than in gridlocked cities is a non-starter for pure practical reasons. I lived a mile from a light rail station. My place of work was about 2 blocks from another light rail station. I drove. Why? Because driving, it was 10 minutes on a nearly-empty 4 lane surface street then on a freeway. Walking, it would have been 20 minutes to walk to the light rail station, then 30 minutes for the train to sloooooowly wend its way through a dozen other stations before getting to my destination. The only way that would have made any sense at all would have been if my time is worthless. But my time isn't worthless. Just ask the people who pay me, they'll tell you that my time is worth over $60/hour, and taking mass transit rather than driving would have wasted 1.3 hours i.e. $78 of my time every day.
ReplyDeleteNow granted, I'm paid a bit better than most people. But even if I made $10/hour the numbers don't add up. Gas would have to be over $10/gallon before someone making $10/hour would be better off taking mass transit rather than driving. This is assuming that a) he already has a car for other purposes thus that's a sunk cost, and b) he can work extra for that extra hour and earn $10.
So anyhow, that's why I'm completely and utterly unsurprised by these numbers. Mass transit in most of the nation simply takes too much time to get anywhere compared to driving a car, and time is money. Only in gridlocked cities is that not the case. Which, BTW, describes most European cities, since for some reason they were reluctant to knock down hundreds-of-years-old buildings to build freeways through the center of their cities :).
- Badtux the Practical Penguin
My views on mass transit are diametrically opposed to Badtux.
ReplyDeleteI started taking the bus to work two to three times a week when gas went back over $3 a gallon. With a 75-cent fare ($1.50 round trip), I'd have to get 28 mpg or better on my 14-mile drive to and from work in order to beat it. And whereas that not unreasonable for a '07 Corolla, it doesn't include the 28 to 42 miles of wear and tear on the vehicle I avoid each week.
At $10 a gallon, I'd have to get better than 93 mpg to beat the bus.
But what about the time factor, you might ask. Like Badtux, my time is valuable too. As a paralegal, I bill my time at an average of $140 an hour. But whether I drive or take the bus, I normally put in an 8-hour day, so I'm not decreasing my economic value by taking the bus.
(cont'd)
As far as my personal time, it takes me about 16 minutes to drive to work and about the same amount of time to drive home. Riding the bus takes about 30 minutes in the morning, 40 minutes after work. Because of the bus schedule, I have to leave the house about an hour earlier, and I get home 15 to 30 minutes later than when I drive.
ReplyDeleteInconvenient? You bet. But hardly a waste of time. I can read or watch my video iPod on my commute. Try doing that while you're driving. And I don't have to deal with the stress of drivers cutting me off. By the time I get to work, I'm a lot less stressed than when I drive. And the 4-minute walk home in the evenings helps me wind down.
Maybe it's the 10 years that I spent in Europe, but I actually prefer taking mass transit. And it'll get even cheaper for me in four years, when I turn 65. Unless my health fails, I'll continue working, but my bus fare will drop to just 35 cents.
I have seen arguments like BadTux's before - and quite frankly they are utterly silly. Placing a dollar value on time spent on some activity when you are not earning income based on what you earn when you are making income makes no economic sense whatsoever.
ReplyDeleteIt's fine for figuring out, say, how much you would want to charge someone for contract work that involves regular travel to some site, where including the cost of travel time is normal, but to use it as a basis for other comparisons - including regular commutation, where the cost of travel normally is not part of the pay calculus - is, again, just silly.
If BadTux watches TV for an hour, is that a "waste" of $60? Does a 30-minute lunch at a hot dog stand "cost" $30? Does getting a good night's sleep flush $480 down the drain?
The point is that we don't buy things with hypothetical calculations of the value of our time but will dollars. So, as Curious Texan notes, the real fiscal calculation is the actual cost of mass transit versus to actual cost of gas and tolls plus maintenance of the vehicle. While it's surely not true in every single case, mass transit most often comes out quite well in such a comparison.
:sigh:
ReplyDeleteThat, of course, was supposed to be "but with dollars" and "versus the actual cost."