It appears to be generally accepted that auto-dependent sprawl is bad from an environmental perspective, and also from a social perspective. However, one of the biggest arguments that public transport advocates seem to come up against is that roading projects come across as having better cost-benefit ratios. Furthermore, land-use policies continue to generally promote single-use sprawl instead of intensified mixed-use developments – despite the recognition that auto-dependent sprawl leads to higher CO2 emissions and other environmental nasties. Pages 29-44 of my thesis detail the adverse effects of auto-dependent sprawl quite exhaustively.
So let’s have a look at the economic effects of auto-dependent sprawl a bit more, using my favourite book of late: Resilient Cities. OK I admit it, the main purpose of this post is to allow me to quote good bits of this book – but seriously they are too good not to share! For a start, the book outlines the way in which many of the actual costs of auto-dependent sprawl are somewhat “hidden” from us:
One of the main characteristics of our modern society is that so many of the direct and indirect consequences of our consumption and other personal (and collective) decisions are hidden from us. We tend to judge our investments in renewable energy in terms of artificially truncated incomplete pricing systems that fail to adequately account for the full and true costs of our overuse of fossil fuels.
This is particularly true for private vehicle focused transportation policies in my opinion. We don’t offset the CO2 emissions produced by our cars, or the particulate matter emissions that kill hundreds of people in Auckland a year, or the effects of requiring masses of the city being set aside for parking, or many many other hidden costs of our auto-dependency. This is further detailed:
Buying a house in auto-dependent suburbs, far away from work and commerce, does not include the full costs of commuting – economic costs or cost to the environment and human health. Numerous studies show the hidden costs of such sprawling development to government and to individuals. One study that compares the costs of alternative development patterns found that smart growth could provide savings of anywhere from five to seventy-five thousand dollars annually per unit for public infrastructure costs and five hundred to ten thousand dollars annually per unit for incremental operations, maintenance, and service costs.
The hidden subsidies that make auto-dependent sprawl are particularly evident when it comes to transportation issues:
Most people consider driving to be cheaper than transit. However, data suggest that direct costs are more when totaled (though these are rarely tallied as gasoline alone is seen as the cost) and when external costs (such as building and maintaining road infrastructure and the cost to the individual of purchasing and maintaining an automobile) are added, driving is much more expensive. The costs of car travel have been estimated to be about three times the cost of transit, though it is perceived by motorists to be less expensive… Transit-based cities spend around 5 to 8 percent of their city wealth on transportation but in heavily car-based cities this ranges from 12 to 15 percent (even 19 percent for Phoenix).
I probably have mentioned this before, but really this is the crux of the issue. It simply makes far more economic sense to invest in public transport and avoid auto-dependent sprawl.
Processing...
The use of the term “auto-dependent” is loaded and implies people wouldn’t use their cars if another option were available. The truth is that for many these options exist, but they don’t choose them. Most people LIKE owning a car, enjoy the flexibility, comfort and convenience it provides. You travel when you want to, where you want to, have ample capacity to carry what you want (how many prefer carrying loads of shopping bags on a bus to putting them in a car), has more space, can be heated or cooled as you wish, and you can always listen to whatever you want without others drowning it out. People in China, India and indeed the whole of eastern Europe hardly live in cities where cars are the only viable option, yet they gravitate towards them because they are more desirable. It has been one of the biggest challenges for cities in the former Soviet sphere which all had well developed public transport networks which have seen massive rises in car ownership, because people want the flexibility.
The book you quote is, of course, US centric, but the NZ context is different. Motorists pay for the full costs of state highways in NZ, and the marginal costs of local road maintenance (but not the fixed costs). No cities in the US are “transit based” in the sense that a significant proportion of trips are by public transport, all US cities have public transport mode shares of a quarter or less than cars, so I don’t quite understand “transit based”. Note that the US, which has a very socialist approach to both public transport and roads, has declining bus shares, compared to the UK and NZ with privatised, largely commercial oriented operations.
There is much that can be done to level the playing field – ending planning rules around parking would help, as would ending subsidies for off peak public transport, and recovering all marginal costs of roads from road vehicles (which is largely done in NZ).
The elephant in the room with your analysis is that NO city anywhere has achieved significant congestion relief by supplying subsidised public transport, but many have destroyed much wealth in trying (and seen huge transfers to marginal middle class suburban areas). The problem is roads are priced in a centrally planned, egalitarian, socialist manner.
The problems you see with urban transport are far less evident for intercity transport, and largely don’t exist in the mostly private commercial telecommunications sector, for example. Have a guess why urban transport is different – because politicians keep trying to mould it to fit what they think people need, not letting it develop according to what people want, but letting them pay for it.
When I mean auto-dependent I mean situations where people would use public transport if there was a viable option available. Take the Howick/Pakuranga part of Auckland as an example – there is a bus, but it takes FOREVER (like an hour and a half from Howick to the city). As a result of the public transport being so slow and pathetic, everyone drives. That is auto-dependency. This example occurs in many many other parts of the city too, Howick/Pakuranga is just an extreme example.
Peter Newman, the lead author of Resilient Cities is actually Australian, and quite a few Australian examples are used in the book. Thankfully in New Zealand motorists do pay for the DIRECT costs of the state highway system, and for half the costs of local roading. Of course there are plenty of indirect costs that aren’t accounted for – air pollution, noise pollution, wasted space on carparking and CO2 emissions being just a few examples.
The “transit based” cities referred to are cities in Europe and Japan (I think) which are much more transit based. I agree that inner New York City is probably the only bit of the USA that could be classified as transit based.
In terms of not being able to eliminate congestion, well I’m yet to see any large city in the world that isn’t congested. However, at least in a city like Paris you have plenty of different transport options tailored to suit your needs. The RER for longer distance commuting, the Metro for inner-city travel, the bus for areas not served by rail, other suburban trains for commuting to even farther flung suburbs and so on. In Auckland you have one choice generally – to drive. Or to take the bus that will always be slower, usually more expensive (due to subsidised parking) and so on. That’s why we need to do public transport better, to provide options.
I can’t help but think that you’re simply taking the “let’s see what fits in best with my (you must admit rather fringe) ideology” approach rather than a “what has the best social, economic and environmental outcomes” approach. I have outlined above how auto-dependency does not provide the best economic outcomes. Honestly I think it’s irrelevant how much we individually pay for transport and how much is subsidised – what matters in the end is the total of the two. What type of transport system can deliver more for less – and the evidence seems to be a balanced transit-based system, not an auto-dependent system. The social and environmental benefits of avoiding auto-dependency are pretty well known and accepted so I won’t go there for now.
Finally, the reason why you subsidise transport is because it’s worth it. The benefits of a good transport system are extremely wide-reaching: enabling people and goods to move around. Because the benefits are so broad, it’s obvious that subsidisation is not only necessary – but also completely justifiable.
I guess as oil prices rise, these transit based areas are going to become more popular. Just look at what happened last year when oil prices hit $2.12 a litre, people started using public transport.
When oil starts to run out (as there is only so much in the ground and more and more Asian and Indian hit the road) with the high demand and low supply. Cities with urban sprawl and high automotive dependence will be scrambling to build more public transport infrastructure. We will see more transit based cities forming in the western world.
Freedom maybe cheap now (not including the hidden costs to society), but in the future will come with a significant price tag.