[miketoronto]

I had a debate with a co-worker yesterday at work over public transit. Remember that I work for a transit system so my co-worker works for the public transit system also :)

Anyway he was debating with me saying that my pro-transit approach and wanting to improve transit would hurt the economy of Toronto and North America.

His whole view is that if we get to many people onto public transit, our economy will go down the drain, because the North American economy is built on cars. He said if we get to many people onto transit we are basically putting auto workers out of jobs, and ruining the whole economy.

Your views on this?? I told him the economy would correct itself and those workers would be working for the transit industry, and that improving transit does not mean an end to cars. It just means using them less.

Anyway your views on this. This is not the first time I have heard this remark about to much transit use killing the economy.

I won't even get started on his other comment about how North American's are to good and demand comfort, and that we should just accept transit will never carry many people, because it does not meet the high end and comfort lifestyle of North Americans :)

[LostInTheZone]

I think your coworker needs to step out of 1965 and realize that automobile manufacturing is no longer the cornerstone of the American economy, and hasnt been for a long time.

[CGII]

Improving transit, while hurting the auto industry, will help everyone else.

[rapid_business]

How about the large number of people who don't live in urban communities and can't use public transit even if they wanted? There is your automobile culture alive and well.

Quick question: I heard a similar though from a friend who said that if one (or maybe all) of the big 3 collapsed, it would have a devistating effect on the US economy. True, or over inflated? Detroit perhaps, but the entire nation's economy due to a struggling car company?

[zaphod]

Japan's and Germany's automakers seem to do just fine and they seem to have good mass transit in those places.....

[CGII]

But Japan and Germany both have HUGE stakes of their markets in America, whereas Ford is not nearly so powerful overseas.

[1Post2]

Gridlock has a huge negative economic impact. Plus, with the bad land usage that the automobile permits, the number of miles each individual must travel for his or her day to day (no matter the mode of transportation) increases exponentially. I'd find it hard to believe that better mass transit infrastructure and the resulting changes in the built environment of our cities would be anything but an economic boon in the long run.

[passdoubt]

Most transit improvements in North America over the past 30 years have basically involved the extension and creation of park-n-ride systems serving auto-dependent suburbia. This doesn't result in less cars being bought, it just results in more people commuting further while using both modes. Maybe you've got a few more 1-car households where you would have had 2, but it's not breakin the bank for Detroit.

[The Chemist]

But Japan and Germany both have HUGE stakes of their markets in America, whereas Ford is not nearly so powerful overseas.

Ford is very big in Europe.

[volguus zildrohar]

Your friend is a nut, Mike, but, like the noble macadamia, he's a nut you can't put down.

The car isn't going anywhere. I can't speak for Canadians but the American lifestyle naturally inclines people to want to drive whereas public transit is seen as being either for people who can't afford the alternatives or "the type of people who don't eat meat", in other words on the fringe of the mainstream all-American image. If it ever gets to the point where car companies are worried about competition from the local MTA then we'll have reached a point in this country where things will be so good the economic impact will be very brief and have a short reach.

[CGII]

Ford is very big in Europe.

My apologies, I actually meant Chrysler and GM in relation to Europe.

Ford is a weird case. They build all their great cars for Europe and Asia and leave the shitty, two year old leftovers for North America.

[Hammer Town]

Um my thoughts on this are that Transit will maybe slightly hurt the auto industry not a lot though unless by some fluke people are actually starting to use transit. So ya as much as it might hurt the auto industry the governements might save money on health care because we won't be pumping as much pollution into the air. Which would maybe save companies money on health insurance as well as possibly paying less taxes.

Make some sense.

[SpongeG]

But Japan and Germany both have HUGE stakes of their markets in America, whereas Ford is not nearly so powerful overseas.

but ford owns so many things

Volvo
Jaguar
Range Rover
Mazda (controlling interest anyway)
plus some others

[SpongeG]

Ford is very big in Europe.

yes i have never seen so many ford Focuses as i saw in london - must have been every 3rd car it seemed like

[SpongeG]

Gridlock has a huge negative economic impact. Plus, with the bad land usage that the automobile permits, the number of miles each individual must travel for his or her day to day (no matter the mode of transportation) increases exponentially. I'd find it hard to believe that better mass transit infrastructure and the resulting changes in the built environment of our cities would be anything but an economic boon in the long run.

yeah i read a couple months ago how traffic is causing business to lose money and accidents make it worse.

just items that are shipped and get delayed en route to or from shops warehouses etc. so like if a truck can only do 3 trips in a day and than an accident snarls traffic that could be reduced to 2 or only 1 trip. causing the store at one end not to have product etc.

[Riise]

Ford is a weird case. They build all their great cars for Europe and Asia and leave the shitty, two year old leftovers for North America.

I hate American cars but I must give credit where credit is due, some of Ford's non-North American models actually look pretty decent, nice even.

[Major AWACS]

But Japan and Germany both have HUGE stakes of their markets in America, whereas Ford is not nearly so powerful overseas.

Ditto what everyone else said. Ford of Europe is actually making money for the company. Big time. the majority on my strasse (Dutch and Germans) here drive Ford's (Not to mention the Ford Sport Trac I brought over :D )

as for your friend plenty of foreign auto companies are building in North America so all is not to be lost-though I disagree with the premise that the mass transit will cause problems in the first place.

Ciao, and Hook 'em Horns,
Capt-AWACS, Carpe imperium

[WesTheAngelino]

The American economy is not built on cars, it is built on people buying things they essentially don't need. If less people drove cars it would improve the economy since they would spend their now freed up car not and insurance on other useless crap....like beanie babies or dental dams

[WonderlandPark]

North American spends far, far more on importing oil than the all the cars we make, sell and market the world over.

[anm]

better transit allows more business to get done faster and more efficiently

so better transit of any kind will only help the economy

[WesTheAngelino]

Y'know what would've actually contributoing to winning the hearts of minds of Iraqis???? BUILDING A SUBWAY FOR BAGHDAD!!!!!!

[Nutterbug]

Your friend is a nut, Mike, but, like the noble macadamia, he's a nut you can't put down.

The car isn't going anywhere. I can't speak for Canadians but the American lifestyle naturally inclines people to want to drive whereas public transit is seen as being either for people who can't afford the alternatives or "the type of people who don't eat meat", in other words on the fringe of the mainstream all-American image.

Maybe George W. and his administration should not have lied about terrorists and WMD's in Iraq, but instead been more forthcoming and honest about securing the country's oil supply. His popularity may not have taken as big a fall then.

[austin356]

"supporting transit put workers out of jobs"


I am an economics major and I tell you this is just a stupid statement. Yes you could possibly destroy alot of automotive jobs, but what happens to that 30,000 that the consumer had that he she did not spend on autos?

Simple answer is he/she spends the money elsewhere in the economy. All it is is taking X dollars from Y industry and giving X dollars to Z industry. It is a zero sum game.

Who would benefit from less automotive industry? Really everyone as a whole, which would be most profound in consumer retail.

There will never be any net negative economic ramifications to the economy unless transit is less efficient per dollar spent than roads (which is still up to reasonable debate, by reasonable people)

[mSeattle]

Who forced us to not have a robust train manufacturing and rail construction industry?

[seaskyfan]

In most places transit replaces trips, not cars.

[nomarandlee]

I think pulling the rug of the auto industry would devastate some rural towns (and drive Detroit further into the ground) and many people would be left behind while the economy reorganizes itself which the government would have to help out in turns of reeducation and job training programs. The oil industry would also take a bit of a hit if a true public transportation culture came to fruition.

However I believe that more then devastating the economy it would more just shuffle capital around and eventually help out sectors of the economy. Taxes and road subsidies could be lowered which would only help the economy as public transportation infrastructure subsidies (long term) are on the whole lower I would gather. Also more money would be freed up for discretionary spending of consumers to spend on other industries that aren't being spent on cars and oil which takes a substantial amount of peoples spending.

Oil sheiks and Americans in the oil/car industry (which are obviously huge) would be hurt irrevocably but as long as people are using the savings incurred from not spending on auto's went proportionally into domestic industries as is spent on the domestic auto industry I think it would ok or even better for it. It would have to be done very gradually and with many social services and astute planning to make the transition as least turbulent (which it would be) as possible.

[anm]

I fail to see how more transit instead of driving "would devastate some rural towns".

IMO, rural towns will not have public transit anyway, unless they are part of a megapolice. So, whoever has been driving in rural town will keep driving, not much will change.

Only in big densely populated cities public transit has any chance to be cost-efficient, and what is crucially important, more cost-efficient than driving.

[nomarandlee]

I fail to see how more transit instead of driving "would devastate some rural towns".

IMO, rural towns will not have public transit anyway, unless they are part of a megapolice. So, whoever has been driving in rural town will keep driving, not much will change.

Only in big densely populated cities public transit has any chance to be cost-efficient, and what is crucially important, more cost-efficient than driving.

No, most rural towns would be ok or relatively unchanged (other then maybe being closer to more frequant long distance train service which is positive) but I was thinking more rural or medium sized towns where auto plants is what are largely sustaing them.

[Swede]

"supporting transit put workers out of jobs"

I am an economics major and I tell you this is just a stupid statement. Yes you could possibly destroy alot of automotive jobs, but what happens to that 30,000 that the consumer had that he she did not spend on autos?

Simple answer is he/she spends the money elsewhere in the economy. All it is is taking X dollars from Y industry and giving X dollars to Z industry. It is a zero sum game.

Hear, hear!
And let's not forget all the money spent on fuel. That's money that can then be spent on more constructive things than fossil fuel that's gonna turn into pollution.

[wong21fr]

That money spent on fuel would be shifted over towards transit costs, i.e. buying a train ticket or pass.

So that's also a zero sum gain.

[Swede]

^It's not. Transit tends to be way cheaper for the user. At least here in Europe where fuel actually costs money ;) Rough estimate I'd say driving to/from work (per month) would cost me 440 crowns in fuel and the transit pass costs 600 crowns. So just the fuel costs covers most of it! when you add all the other costs (parking, insurance, maintenance, ...) it's so much cheaper it's ridiculous.
So that money is spent elsewhere instead...

[austin356]

^It's not. Transit tends to be way cheaper for the user. At least here in Europe where fuel actually costs money ;) Rough estimate I'd say driving to/from work (per month) would cost me 440 crowns in fuel and the transit pass costs 600 crowns. So just the fuel costs covers most of it! when you add all the other costs (parking, insurance, maintenance, ...) it's so much cheaper it's ridiculous.
So that money is spent elsewhere instead...



it depends on the situation. In most cases it would be cheaper. But the real cost of owning a car is very concealed. You have the original cost, then sales tax, then yearly registration, then tag cost, then gas cost, then both Fed/State/Local gas taxes, then state/local sales taxes on that gas, then insurance cost, repair/maintenance cost, the parking cost (if you work in a business district), and finally tolls.

My point is not to show how much a car cost (we all know that) but to show how complex it is to add up the whole cost. Thus most people never realize how much they are spending on the car because it is not in a lump sum or even easily itemized. This makes it harder for someone to realize that transit is less costly.

If a state was to unify taxation the people would realize to a much greater extent, that transit is much cheaper in the majority of trips.

[Chicago Shawn]

"supporting transit put workers out of jobs"


I am an economics major and I tell you this is just a stupid statement. Yes you could possibly destroy alot of automotive jobs, but what happens to that 30,000 that the consumer had that he she did not spend on autos?

Simple answer is he/she spends the money elsewhere in the economy. All it is is taking X dollars from Y industry and giving X dollars to Z industry. It is a zero sum game.

Who would benefit from less automotive industry? Really everyone as a whole, which would be most profound in consumer retail.

There will never be any net negative economic ramifications to the economy unless transit is less efficient per dollar spent than roads (which is still up to reasonable debate, by reasonable people)


Plus don't forget all the infrastructure dollars spent on road constructionm, expansion and repair that could be saved and redirected elsewhere, such as social healthcare, putting even more money into consumer hands; in addition to fuel savings and other items mentioned.

The fuel alone, is one other thing. Mike, you should remind your co-worker that the North Americain economy is run on the assumption cheap fuel will be around forever. Well, most people are realizing that is not true now, but are we really putting the all needed extra effort into alternative transit and fuels? Nope. And when the demand exceeds the available supply of oil, and as the heavy production fields dry up, our economy will be roraly FUCKED! China and India are consuming more energy every day to keep thier roaring economic engines moving, what happens when newly created middle classes in those countries start having a car culture like Americans? Oil will run out very fast, the U.S. alone consumes 25% of the world's oil production with just less than 6% of the world's population. Now what happens with the world's two most populated nations increase thier demand ten fold from what it is now? More wars over energy are very likley to come. I won't even begin to touch on the pollution and global warming topic, we all know the saga on here.

In short, investment in transit is an investment on our nation's future, and our world's future.

[wong21fr]

it depends on the situation. In most cases it would be cheaper. But the real cost of owning a car is very concealed. You have the original cost, then sales tax, then yearly registration, then tag cost, then gas cost, then both Fed/State/Local gas taxes, then state/local sales taxes on that gas, then insurance cost, repair/maintenance cost, the parking cost (if you work in a business district), and finally tolls.

My point is not to show how much a car cost (we all know that) but to show how complex it is to add up the whole cost. Thus most people never realize how much they are spending on the car because it is not in a lump sum or even easily itemized. This makes it harder for someone to realize that transit is less costly.

If a state was to unify taxation the people would realize to a much greater extent, that transit is much cheaper in the majority of trips.

True, but if we are making this argument, than we also have to factor in the unseen costs of transit, such as sales taxes used to pay for transit improvements to the overall transit price.

We've got unseen costs and costs that are not directly correlated with both transit and driving. It's silly to dismiss one method of transportation based on unassociated costs while not looking at the other method in the same light.

Let's just redirect our transportation funding to reflect more equal funding for transit and the automobile, a 50/50 split would be nice.

[anm]

it depends on the situation. In most cases it would be cheaper. But the real cost of owning a car is very concealed. You have the original cost, then sales tax, then yearly registration, then tag cost, then gas cost, then both Fed/State/Local gas taxes, then state/local sales taxes on that gas, then insurance cost, repair/maintenance cost, the parking cost (if you work in a business district), and finally tolls.


very true

you forgot one huge cost of cars to society - the cost of accidents

insuarance industry does come anywhere close to covering the actual costs of accidents, particularly those with casualties

here is a post from SSC by elfabyanos
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=408056&page=2

Thats a good point - dealing with accidents is very costly indeed! A quick search and I found this document http://www.fiafoundation.com/resourc...y_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/rai...fety/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.


and how can any insuarance cover the pain of loosing loved ones or having to deal with your own or your loved one impairment?

[CGII]

Let's just redirect our transportation funding to reflect more equal funding for transit and the automobile, a 50/50 split would be nice.
Funding should go where it's needed, not by how one balances a check book. If a road bridge in danger of collapsing needs 75% of the highways/transit budget, let them have it. As well, if light rail wants to expand and roads are in good condition, pour some the other way.