The Myth of Transit Efficiency

July 26, 2009Contrarian Comments Off on The Myth of Transit Efficiency

It is an article of unquestioned faith among advocates of public transit systems that such systems are more efficient than the privately-operated automobile (POV) for passenger transportation. The dogma was expressed most recently by Michael Replogle, a consultant for the Environmental Defense Fund and professional transit propagandist, in his testimony on July 7 before a Senate committee considering whether to lavish further federal subsidies on transit systems:

“Travel by personal vehicle, which makes up the majority of U.S. travel, is among the least efficient passenger travel modes. As a result, 62 percent of transportation‐related GHG emissions are due to gasoline consumption in personal vehicles (an additional 19 percent come from freight trucks). Public transportation, on the other hand, is one of our most efficient modes of passenger travel.”

That dogma has been repeated so often and gone unchallenged for so long that most auto users no doubt also believe it. Yet 90% of them resolutely ignore it when choosing their own method of transport. Drivers appear to consistenly choose what they themselves acknowledge to be a less efficient mode. Isn’t that irrational? Why should there be such a striking disconnect between belief and behavior?

(Link to the hearing video and written transcripts here)

Well, it is because they know intuitively that the dogma is wrong; it is false. They can’t explain why it is false, and there seems to be a consensus that it is true, so they accept it verbally, but disregard it in practice.

It is false because the criterion of efficiency assumed by the dogma is entirely irrelevant.

Let’s consider what “efficiency” means. In physics a process is efficient when it yields a desired output with the fewest inputs. In economic terms, a method is efficient when it yields a desired outcome or goal with the least costly combination of inputs.

The trouble with the transit efficiency myth is that it moves the goalposts — it substitutes the goals of bureaucrats and planners for the actual desires and goals of the traveling public. It also ignores major components of cost. For the planner and bureaucrat, the goal is simply moving a given of bodies a given number of miles, and the only costs considered are fuel consumption and GHG emissions. Their approach is precisely that described by von Mises in a previous post of mine: “[The planners] . . . want to deal with their fellow men in the way an engineer deals with the materials out of which he builds houses, bridges, and machines.”

The actual desires and goals of travelers, on the other hand, are much more diverse and complex. When Annabelle chooses a method for daily commuting, she weighs many more factors than the fuel consumption and emissions of the vehicle. She factors in the the number of tasks she can accomplish on a single trip (drop off the sweaters at the cleaners and make a deposit at the bank on the way to work, jump in her car and run a couple other errands during her lunch hour, pick up the kid from soccer practice on the way home, etc.). She also considers the conveniences and comforts afforded by the various modes — can she rehearse aloud the presentation she must deliver that day, finish putting on her makeup at traffic lights, listen to her favorite rock station at full blast, or argue with the morning talk show host during the commute? If she’s 5 minutes late getting out the door in the morning, will she be 5 minutes late for work — and perhaps even be able to make that up by foregoing her usual Starbucks stop —  or will she be 30 minutes late because she had to wait for the next bus?

What if she has a frustrating day and decides a detour around the lake on her way home might cheer her up — will the bus driver accomodate that desire? Will he sidetrack to her supermarket and wait while she does some grocery shopping? Her car will. And what about the creepy guy who ogled her all the way home the last time she rode a bus, got off at her stop, and followed her until she ducked into a K-Mart and lost him? Will he or another like him be aboard if she rides the bus again?

And, of course, there is the time she must invest. If she uses transit, accommodating herself to its fixed routes and schedules and taking twice as long each way, then once home, must head back out and cover much of the same ground again to accomplish all those errands she could have done in one trip with her car, how much time will she waste?

Travelers do indeed choose the mode most efficient for them. But they consider their actual goals (which only they can know and which not only vary from person to person but from day to day), not the synthetic and facile goals of planners, and they weigh into their calculations not only the costs in dollars, but the costs in time, inconvenience, discomfort, and safety as well.

Until your transit systems meet each traveler’s actual goals, Mr. Replogle, and take into account all their costs, your claims of “efficiency” will remain false and irrelevant propaganda.

Tags: , ,

Comments are closed.