# Which type of transit is most cost efficient?



## KPX express (Oct 18, 2006)

Just wondering. In your mind (and hopefully we have some statistic junkies out there that can back some of this up) which type of trasit is most cost effective?

I am talking inner city travel not open country.

Which one is most efficient and has the lowest construction costs and operating costs.

Lay it on me, I want to know.


----------



## Andrew (Sep 11, 2002)

Walking, rollerblading, cycling.....


----------



## ChrisZwolle (May 7, 2006)

Definitly not Public Transport.

Cars are the most cost efficient for the government. Drivers pays for everything, road taxes, gas taxes etc. The governments recieves way more money from drivers, than the spend on roads and safety.

But if you mean Public Transport, it is a train. It is one of the most subsidied ways of transport, but has the lowest illegal rides amount. Metro have the highest, and is way too cheap to cover the real costs. 

The bus varies. illegal riding in articulated buses is more common, than ordinary buses. But the bus is also the least cost efficient, especially outside rushhours, were there is still a bus every 15 minutes, but almost no travellers taking them. 

But things vary from city to city. In example for Los Angeles, you just can't make a good Public Transportation network, it's just not dense enough for it. But Tokyo and Hong Kong is way different from that.


----------



## Cloudship (Jun 8, 2005)

I think you are refering more to which moves the most amount of people for the least cost. And that depends a lot upon distance and how much you are willing to ignore other factors. Surprisingly, the jumbo jet is one of the most efficient transit forms out there - if you are traveling great distances. Most of the fuel is used in take-off and getting up to altitude, and a jumbo can carry an awfullly large number of passengers. However, it would be terrible if you were only traveling a short distance.

I know this is not helping you any. Perhaps you can establish some kind of limits that would help narrow down the choices.


----------



## ajmstilt (Sep 10, 2006)

bicycle


----------



## I-275westcoastfl (Feb 15, 2005)

Cost efficient is walking i mean you pay for food and water to keep yourself going thats not alot lol.


----------



## anm (Aug 25, 2005)

Chris1491 said:


> Definitly not Public Transport.
> 
> Cars are the most cost efficient for the government. Drivers pays for everything, road taxes, gas taxes etc. The governments recieves way more money from drivers, than the spend on roads and safety.
> 
> ...


Of course, when public transit kind of exists, but few people use it, like is mostly the case in the US, it is inevitably money losing operation.

But in other part of the world it is different. For the record, Moscow metro fully recovers operating expenses using fare and advertisement revenues. Other subways in Russia and former Soviet Union are also close to recovering operating expenses (similarly designed and enjoy high ridership). Similar for commuter rail, buses/ trams/ trolley buses, etc.

Public transit does not have to be money loosing business. Some systems even turn out profit. It is a matter of population density and overall system design.


----------



## ChrisZwolle (May 7, 2006)

There is NO Public Transport in (Western)Europe that runs even break-even-point. one mile travelled with PT is about 4 times more expensive than distance travelled with your own transportation (automobile). 

It should be even attractive to a government. I mean, drivers buys their own cars, pays road taxes, and a huge amount of fuel taxes and VAT. VAT (BPM in Dutch) is 47% of the car real price. Insurances covers the rest. 

Here, Dutch drivers pays about 17 billion euro's to the government each year(except insurance), and they recieve only 2 - 3 billion annually back in the form of maintenance on the road system, and some little improvements. 
5 billion went to the PT, because they have to be subsidized heavily, and about 1 billion goes to the water works (dikes, canals, rivers etc). The rest, some 8 - 11 billion euro's goes to non infrastructure.


----------



## ChrisZwolle (May 7, 2006)

anm said:


> Public transit does not have to be money loosing business. Some systems even turn out profit. It is a matter of population density and overall system design.


Only when you not counting subsidies, it looks like profit. Here, the Dutch Railoperator looks like it's making profits, but in fact, the government has to add 2 - 3 billion annualy just to keep the trains running. 

The price you pay for the fare, is not enough to cover the real costs, which are mosty much higher. Overall, you pay about 20 - 50% of the real costs.


----------



## anm (Aug 25, 2005)

Chris1491 said:


> Only when you not counting subsidies, it looks like profit. Here, the Dutch Railoperator looks like it's making profits, but in fact, the government has to add 2 - 3 billion annualy just to keep the trains running.
> 
> The price you pay for the fare, is not enough to cover the real costs, which are mosty much higher. Overall, you pay about 20 - 50% of the real costs.


This is not the case in Moscow, and I beleive in many Asian metro systems either.


----------



## Cloudship (Jun 8, 2005)

So what exactly is the difference between paying taxes to use public transit, or paying out of pocket expenses for personal transit?


----------



## ChrisZwolle (May 7, 2006)

Cloudship said:


> So what exactly is the difference between paying taxes to use public transit, or paying out of pocket expenses for personal transit?


Public Transport is maintained by taxes which automobile drivers pay. So drivers pay for their own transport, and the PT.


----------



## Cloudship (Jun 8, 2005)

Ah, so one has to choose - either never use public transit, or only ever use public transit? Why are cars and public transit always seen as rivals, not complimentary?


----------



## ChrisZwolle (May 7, 2006)

They are seen as rivals, because the budget of those 2 come from one: the drivers, but PT has recieved huge investments, about 2 tot 4 times higher than the traffic-budget, but cars remains in traffic jams, which are very polluting. 

But the leftist parties still think they can solve the traffic jams with public transportation.


----------



## Cloudship (Jun 8, 2005)

Most funds for public transit in the US anyways don't come from auto taxes. Then again, it gets hard to define exactly where specific dollars come from and go to.

The real way to make them co-exist peacfully is to recognize that they are complimentary systems, and should be treated that way. Private automobiles have the benefits of flexibility, while they are very resource hungry when it comes to space and maintenance, and in safety terms they are beyond anything anyone would put up with in any other transit mode. Public transit has many efficiencies, but lacks teh flexibility. So wheere the flexibility is needed, go with autos, but where efficiency is important, go with transit. Why try to pitch the two against each other?


----------



## elfabyanos (Jun 18, 2006)

Chris1491 said:


> There is NO Public Transport in (Western)Europe that runs even break-even-point.



That is a really sweeping statement and is incorrect. For example, all uk rail operators must run at a healthy enough profit to pay a bounty to the government. On top of that they must pay track access charges which pay network rail for the upkeep of the track. (doesn't yet pay for upgrades but that's because of years when this system wasn't in place and/or working effectively).
Many uk bus companies run at a healthy profit without govt subsidy.

The reason why it is difficult for public transport to compete is because of the massive bias accross the world for personal automobiles for the past 50 years, giving economies of scale it may not have had otherwise. On the flip side there is no reason that public transport cannot be profitable, it just isn't in a lot of places.


----------



## anm (Aug 25, 2005)

Chris1491 said:


> Public Transport is maintained by taxes which automobile drivers pay. So drivers pay for their own transport, and the PT.


1. Roads cost a lot of money to build and maintain. Construction of a 1 km of a freeway is typically comparable to 1 km of a subway line. Then, depending on climat, usage, etc. roads maybe even more expensive to maintain. And roads and car infrastructure are payed for from tax money by ALL people, not only by drivers.

2. In many big cities (like Tokyo and Moscow) practically everybody takes public transit and only some people drive. Even in NYC significant number of people do not have cars, many even don't have driving licences.

3. When the whole infrastructure in a country is built around cars and driving - public transit covering its operating expenses is hard to achieve. In places when infrastructure is built around public transit - it does cover operating expenses and sometimes is even profitable.


----------



## FREKI (Sep 27, 2005)

In time it'a a MagLev line - they can even extract power from breaking!


----------



## vox20 (Jun 27, 2006)

Chris1491 said:


> Only when you not counting subsidies, it looks like profit. Here, the Dutch Railoperator looks like it's making profits, but in fact, the government has to add 2 - 3 billion annualy just to keep the trains running.
> 
> The price you pay for the fare, is not enough to cover the real costs, which are mosty much higher. Overall, you pay about 20 - 50% of the real costs.


Take into account indirect profits that city have from increased land cost around railway ( subway, metro, etc ) stations and along other PT corridors.


----------



## ChrisZwolle (May 7, 2006)

vox20 said:


> Take into account indirect profits that city have from increased land cost around railway ( subway, metro, etc ) stations and along other PT corridors.


That's why the Hong Kong metro is making profits. Not because of the fares.


----------



## leo_sh (Oct 23, 2006)

HK Metro only takes the profit from a part of the development around its metro stations. There are much, much more development around the stations that does not belong to HK MRT.

BTW, metro is the reason why these areas can be developed.


----------



## elfabyanos (Jun 18, 2006)

Mr_Denmark said:


> In time it'a a MagLev line - they can even extract power from breaking!


Most modern trains have regenerative braking too, even some of the buses in my city have it (as they are hybrid).


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

KPX express said:


> Just wondering. In your mind (and hopefully we have some statistic junkies out there that can back some of this up) which type of trasit is most cost effective?
> 
> I am talking inner city travel not open country.
> 
> ...


From the motorized options I would guess that the Tram is the most efficient one. But the Bus won't be bad either.

Metro needs signficantly more energy, but is therefore also signifantly faster.

From individual options the moped will be the best, than long nothing, and again long nothing and eventually there comes the car.

Of course, the most efficient one in terms of speed in relation to needed energy is the bicycle. The means of transport of my choice


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

Chris1491 said:


> Definitly not Public Transport.
> 
> Cars are the most cost efficient for the government. Drivers pays for everything, road taxes, gas taxes etc. The governments recieves way more money from drivers, than the spend on roads and safety.
> 
> ...


Thats completely wrong. The drivers do not even come up for all the costs that are created by maintaining the streets infrastructure. All tax payers do.

And if you look at the overall costs for society as a whole, there is no way cars could even remotely hope to catch up. No way. Dont forget, you also have to put them somewhere. Its gigantic how much space has to be wasted for parked cars. 

I am surprised that there still are supporters for the "car friendly" way of life. We tried that all in the 60's and 70's. Guess why, most communities changed their priorities then. 

Its a real benefit for that in Vienna at least 1/3 of all citizens dont possess a car.


----------



## eusebius (Jan 5, 2004)

Cars cost a load, think of all the health care, the insurances and the manufacturing. Consider the fatalities, the noise, the pollution and the mental degradation (selfishness, impatience etc) that car drivers go through. Cycling is probably most efficient though in some countries even cycle paths can be pretty expensive to construct. But the effect on health issues is very positive.


----------



## elfabyanos (Jun 18, 2006)

Thats a good point - dealing with accidents is very costly indeed! A quick search and I found this document http://www.fiafoundation.com/resources/documents/490746264__global_road_safety_factfile.doc
with data from WHO World Bank TRL and ECMT. Here is an extract:


The global financial cost of road traffic injuries is US$ 518 billion each year. 

The cost to low and middle income countries is US$ 65 billion, more than all incoming development aid. 

Road traffic injuries (RTI) cost the USA US$ 230 billion a year (2.3% of GNP) 

The cost to the EU 15 is €180 billion a year, twice the annual EU budget.

RTIs cost South Africa US$ 2 billion in 2000. 

In Uganda the cost is around US$ 101 billion a year (2.3% GNP) 

In China in 1999 RTIs cost US$ 12.5 billion, almost four times the annual health budget. 

In the Middle East the cost of accidents is estimated at US$ 7.4 billion, or 1.5% of GNP.

A website http://www.cfit.gov.uk/docs/2004/railsafety/railsafety/index.htm in the uk discussing implementation of a railway safety system: "Over a 25-year appraisal period, TPWS is expected to save 38 lives, at an average cost of £15.4m per life." There are about 3000 deaths per year in the uk due to accidents, so using their figure thats £46bn, or about $80bn.

Check this out aswell http://www.transwatch.co.uk/transport-fact-sheet-10.htm.


----------



## Yardmaster (Jun 1, 2004)

chris1491 said:


> one mile travelled with PT is about 4 times more expensive than distance travelled with your own transportation (automobile).


I'd like to see some references quoted.

It's hard to see how carting around close to a tonne of metal - just for yourself- occupying (in a safe situation) about 80 sq metres of roadway, and requiring something similar to park your car whenever you leave it could be considered energy-efficient.

No doubt people will quibble with my statistics. Cars have gotten lighter here, but typically there's still one one person inside them when they're driven to and from work. I once read that L.A. was one third tarmac (roadway etc.) ... not sure if that's still the case, but it partially accounts for it's lack of urban density. It also accounts for the notorious smog ... we have that problem here too, even those who don't own a car. Just lately people have been succesfully suing tobacco companies for kidding them they wouldn't get cancer ... think about that. I wonder how much pollution I generate when I take the train to the city. Or the bush.


----------



## adrimm (Dec 17, 2006)

I believe that one of the most cost-effective mass-public transport systems are the dedicated busway systems such as that in Bogota Colombia, and Curitiba Brazil. The infrastructure is more affordable than fixed surface rail, and the system is flexible in that it is easy to replace the buses at the end of their live, and move them to different routes within the system. That said, cities like London and New York are showing that with good bones and maintenance, the life of subsurface system can span hundreds of years.

US Federal Transit Administration Report (May 2006) studying the Transmilenio:
http://www.nbrti.org/media/documents/Bogota%20Report_Final%20Report_May%202006.pdf


----------



## adrimm (Dec 17, 2006)

If we add up all the costs of private car-systems (regardless of who pays the bills) I think that mass transit systems more cost-effective in moving people, BUT for them to be more cost-effective 1) you need the population density and 2) you need a good system with frequent, fast and well-distributed service.

1) Value of land sucked into private car use (gov't pays)= taxpayer = driver
2) Cost of insurance = driver
3) Cost of fuel = driver
4) cost to health of little walking from private car use = insurance or gov't =driver
5) cost of air quality of private car use = cost to our lungs = drivers


----------



## Cloudship (Jun 8, 2005)

There's a one or two advantages that a private auto has that gives it an advantage in certain situations. The fact that the passenger is also the operator, and in many cases also performs very minor maintenance work (refueling, changing the oil, etc.) does serve some cost savings. Also, the private automobile is the most direct route unless someone lives along a transit line. You only HAVE to expend the fuel necessary to get from your origin to your destination.

Any transit system, cars included, are a series of compromises and tradeoffs. You trade off space, speed, safety, fuel efficiency, emissions, etc. You can't say that one mode is always more efficient than another, simply because every situation is different, meaning that the value of those tradeoffs are different. In some cases a car is more efficient, particularly if it's a case where the transit lines are unable to go near one's origin or destination, you have a lot of stuff to carry, there is a personal safety concern, or an issue with time. Likewise something like a train works great when you have a large number of people going from point a to point b at the same time, and don't have a lot of stuff to carry with them.


----------



## anm (Aug 25, 2005)

Cloudship said:


> There's a one or two advantages that a private auto has that gives it an advantage in certain situations. The fact that the passenger is also the operator, and in many cases also performs very minor maintenance work (refueling, changing the oil, etc.) does serve some cost savings.


and this sucks your life out; instead of living your life you service the car; been there, done that, in fact still doing and hate it; this is an example of huge burden on society, not cost saving




Cloudship said:


> Also, the private automobile is the most direct route unless someone lives along a transit line. You only HAVE to expend the fuel necessary to get from your origin to your destination.


Yes, if all you have is one line... or better say if public transit is poorly developed, as is the case in most US cities (I give this example because I am well too familiar with it living in Philly). But when public transit is as developed as it is in Moscow or Tokyo, or you name it, then, the density the network makes getting from place A to B by public transit as direct as driving by car or better. Cars are not helicopters, they use road infrastructure, and if public transit infrastructure is as dense (or denser) than your argument goes down the toilet :toilet: 



Cloudship said:


> Any transit system, cars included, are a series of compromises and tradeoffs. You trade off space, speed, safety, fuel efficiency, emissions, etc. You can't say that one mode is always more efficient than another, simply because every situation is different, meaning that the value of those tradeoffs are different. In some cases a car is more efficient, particularly if it's a case where the transit lines are unable to go near one's origin or destination, you have a lot of stuff to carry, there is a personal safety concern, or an issue with time. Likewise something like a train works great when you have a large number of people going from point a to point b at the same time, and don't have a lot of stuff to carry with them.


^^most of these concerns just reinforce my impression that you use a poorely developed public transit system as a reference point for comparison with driving


----------



## Cloudship (Jun 8, 2005)

anm said:


> Yes, if all you have is one line... or better say if public transit is poorly developed, as is the case in most US cities (I give this example because I am well too familiar with it living in Philly). But when public transit is as developed as it is in Moscow or Tokyo, or you name it, then, the density the network makes getting from place A to B by public transit as direct as driving by car or better. Cars are not helicopters, they use road infrastructure, and if public transit infrastructure is as dense (or denser) than your argument goes down the toilet/QUOTE]
> 
> Again, so long as you conform to the transit - i.e. live in a city, live along the lines, can afford to pay that money... not everyone in the world wants to live in density. And again it's nearly impossible to have an efficient public transit system reach everywhere - once you get to that point, you are loosing a lot of the efficiencies that public transit offers. The reason why transit works is density - enough people going from one point or set of points to another that you can share. If you had to build a mass transit system to reach every small neighborhood you would neve have the density to make it viable.


----------



## anm (Aug 25, 2005)

Cloudship said:


> Again, so long as you conform to the transit - i.e. live in a city, live along the lines, can afford to pay that money... *not everyone in the world wants to live in density.*


well, the very word "density" implies that many people do want it, otherwise we have to explain why so many do it aganist their will...



Cloudship said:


> And again it's nearly impossible to have an efficient public transit system reach everywhere - once you get to that point, you are loosing a lot of the efficiencies that public transit offers.


As long as density supports public transit that pays for its own operating expenses - it is only a matter of the extent of the area with such density, so it is not impossible IMO. The question is rather - should public transit that does not pay for its operating expenses be built at all? And if still "yes", then where is the cutoff cost/benefit line where society as a whole loses more than gains by having poorly used public transit.



Cloudship said:


> The reason why transit works is density - enough people going from one point or set of points to another that you can share. If you had to build a mass transit system to reach every small neighborhood you would neve have the density to make it viable.


Sure, who would argue with this?

Somewhere within your words I sense a certain sentiment "but who wants to live in such density", a kind of attitude that living in low-density suburbs is somehow inherently superior (or more desirable) to living in high-density environment. Am I imagining this?


----------



## Cloudship (Jun 8, 2005)

For many people, living in the suburbs, rural areas, or at least out of the high density of a city is more desireable. You find this especially true in a country such as the US. What this means is that you have to find a transit system that is economical not only for density but also the suburbs.

Ultimately what this means is that there is no one answer to the question. EWach type of transportation - whether that is a train, a bus, the car, or even boats, has a place where it thrives. When planing infrastructure you cannot focus only on one location and ignore everything else. That is perhaps the most inefficient design of all. For instance in the US there has been a tendency to design public transit in complete isolation from other forms - trying to make people choose to either drive OR take light rail, but they have to choose one or the other for everything. That is not a good design. The systems need to work together.


----------



## anm (Aug 25, 2005)

Cloudship said:


> For many people, living in the suburbs, rural areas, or at least out of the high density of a city is more desireable. You find this especially true in a country such as the US. What this means is that you have to find a transit system that is economical not only for density but also the suburbs.


May it be that a cost-efficient transit system for low-density suburbs cannot be made at all? Have not you explained a few posts above that density is a prerequisite for public transit being cost-efficient? Perhaps the alternative is to realise that there is something wrong with about 5% the world population (US and Canada combined) consuming about quarter of the world's energy resouces; that perhaps this has been a wrong path for North America to take; not a good model for the world to follow?

Many people may now prefer to live in the suburbs and cover long distances driving (IMO many even do not prefer but are forced to do so because the auto-oriented infrastructure leaves them no choice). However, in the world with limited resouces this style of living may become too expensive for society as a whole. I am not predicting that US suburbia will be depopulated any time soon; more that the transit-oriented development will eventually reshape population density patterns.



Cloudship said:


> Ultimately what this means is that there is no one answer to the question. EWach type of transportation - whether that is a train, a bus, the car, or even boats, has a place where it thrives. When planing infrastructure you cannot focus only on one location and ignore everything else. That is perhaps the most inefficient design of all. For instance in the US there has been a tendency to design public transit in complete isolation from other forms - trying to make people choose to either drive OR take light rail, but they have to choose one or the other for everything. That is not a good design. The systems need to work together.


I would say that in the US different modes of public transit are fairly isolated from each other instead of working together, this is indeed regrettable.


----------



## anm (Aug 25, 2005)

Another though I had... We have not really defined what "cost-efficient" transit means and how cost-efficiency should be measured (or whether it can be measured at all).

IMO, what matters the most is the overall cost/benefit of public transit to society. It is not simply a trivial comparison of the gas/parking fee vs. train ticket price, neither it is the share of operating expenses covered by revenues, or the cost of auto accidents to society. All of the above considerations matter (as well as many others), and one should not overlook the most important benefit - the business that is being done due to public transit, just think of the effect of public transit strikes in major cities.


----------



## Cloudship (Jun 8, 2005)

Be careful of the terms transit and public transit. They are different. Transit is any mode - a bicycle is a form of transit, as is a private automobile or a private plane. Public Transit is a shared system. And to be shared, it requires compromises. That is fine so long as the compromises are something people are willing to make. But if you make those compromises too much for people to accept, then they simply turn away from public transit. A big problem with many public transit systems is that they are designed to compete, not work together. There are benefits that a form of transit like a car would have that other transit systems do not. If you want people to actually use public transit as much as possible, you have to make it something they will use. No matter how much you try, you are never going to change people's needs and desires. Either learn to meet those the most efficiently, or the plans die.


----------



## Epi (Jul 21, 2006)

I'd say a good escalator is the best. A nicely made one will only need perhaps a lightbulb's worth of electricity to keep it running as the thing is counterbalanced. Same with elevators.

Can't be considered transit you say? Well the 1km long escalator in Hong Kong would argue otherwise 

But if you look at traditional methods, I'd say long-range rail is the most efficient in terms of fuel used/(distance travelled x number of people). It is definately more efficient than buses and air travel. This is especially true if you have electrified trains and a renewable electricity source. Even if it is from a coal plant, it is probably still producing less CO2 than the equivalent number of buses.

In terms of efficiency in terms of money, I'd say a fleet of buses is probably the cheapest unless you pass a certain threshold of ridership where LRT is better.

In terms of better for the world, cycling and bike paths are by far the best in terms of speed/cost.

But in the end nothing beats walking, which incidentally, much like the escalator isn't remotely considered a transit system.


And the least efficient? Space shuttle. After using all that fuel, it lands in the same spot as it started


----------

