|
|
|||||||||
|
| |||||||||
U.S. transit and automotive statistics.xlsx U.S. transit financial data.xlsx Notes on the private turnaround operators.pdf Congressional testimony by private turnaround operators.pdf Consolidation of journey-to-work data.pdf
|
|
Cliff Slater has written an eye-opening book about U.S. urban transit…Slater uses an array of detailed tables and figures to document how massive federal transit funding failed to restore pre-war central business districts and particularly failed “to get people out of their cars.” His numbers—all from federal sources—show that federally funded light rail and heavy rail systems cost a lot more than promised and, in most cases, delivered far less ridership. Some of the numbers in these tables, such as subsidies per boarding in different modes of transit will be news to even many well-informed transportation nerds. Truly outstanding. I learned a great deal about the industry that I’ve been working in for over four decades. An interesting, factually reasoned summary of public transit over time...practitioners and students in civil engineering and urban planning can benefit from the rich presentation of transit types of service and costs; and use it as a base for their projects and research on existing and novel transit systems. SUPERB! A superb piece of work. Massive research and sound treatment. It will be a major reference. Should be required reading for policy makers, and the citizens taxed to fund their mass transit dreams. Exhaustively researched (nearly 800 footnotes over 342 pages), the book details the Industrial Revolution origins of mass transit and its development through the 20th century. Slater is especially focused on the 1970s takeover, by government at all levels, of what had been a “largely private and profitable transit bus industry” up to that point. The book ends on a glimpse of the new vehicles and technologies currently poised to be the final rebuttal to the idea of government-run trains on tracks, as well as the social forces underway — such as the rise of ridesharing apps and remote work — that have accelerated the decline in transit ridership. Slater shows that the public transit lobby skillfully managed the political system in its favor, effectively screwing both taxpayers and the private bus operators. The arguments it used were the same as the ones we hear today: downtown recovery is essential to urban vitality (p. 152); one rail transit line can move as many people as a 20-lane freeway (p. 151); transit will relieve congestion by getting people out of their cars (p. 157); and so on, all of which are refuted by Slater, often using quotes from people at that time. it's a great book…I heartily recommend Slater’s book to get the full story of how we got here." "I greatly enjoyed your book. Good job! Were I still teaching, I would surely assign it.” "Fascinating!"
Buy the book on Amazon, Barnes and Noble, or BookLocker.
Follow us on X (formerly Twitter), and Facebook.
Communicate via email.
Pacific Research Institute carries O'Toole's review:: The Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy is a California-based free-market think tank which promotes "the principles of individual freedom and personal responsibility" through policies that emphasize a free economy, private initiative, and limited government. Think Tech Hawaii's Jay Fidell interviews Cliff: This was a half-hour interview of Cliff (see below) during which Jay said that the book, "is a masterwork spanning a myriad of local and national issues and considerations on the subject and important to anyone interested in knowing where rail is going.” Jay was particularly interested in the future of transit continuing to decline especially with the advent of autonomous vehicles, which I believe may lead to door-to-door service in 4 to 6-passenger vehicles at a price suffienciently attractive to draw a considerable number of riders from transit. His concern was, what happens to rail infrastructure when it becomes obsolete?
The show may be seen HERE. New Geography runs O'Toole's review (see below): NewGeography.com is run by Joel Kotkin, a prolific author of numerous books and articles on demographic, social, and economic trends in the U.S. and internationally. We are honored that he puts the review on the front page. Transit nearing irrelevance: The "riding habit," shown below, is a metric in use in the days when transit was thriving. It is simply the annual transit boardings divided by the urban population. Until 2010 the census of urban population was only taken every ten years for those years ending in zero. Since they fall between decennial censuses, the major effects of the Depression and World War II do not show up. In 1900, for all but the wealthiest, commuting choice was simple, transit or walk. In 1926, the automobile overtook transit, which has decline since then—World War II aside. In 2022 commuting by transit was the choice of only 3.8% of all workers.
Why was President Johnson on the book cover? I have been asked why President Johnson was on the cover and not the others. There were three presidents involved in the Urban Mass Transportation Acts of 1964 and 1970 in the socialization of the private U.S. transit bus industry. Kennedy, who called for continued private buses, Johnson, who signed the 1964 Act that was the antithesis of what Kennedy wanted and ensured that the bus companies would be socialized, and Nixon who, to everyone's suprise, ensured that the whole program would be well funded. A cover with all three would give it a Mount Rushmore look. We settled on Johnson as being the most to blame. The whole story is told in detail in Chapter IV. Light rail costs more than Uber? In Los Angeles,…UberX…charges no base fare, 28 cents per minute, and 80 cents per mile. (There's a booking fee of $2.30.) Source: lifewire.com We will use 5.2 miles since that is the average length of a light rail boarding. For taking an Uber trip of 5.2 miles @ 20 mph = $4.16, plus 5.2 x $0.80 = $4.16, plus $2.30 = $10.62 as the total Uber price. Table 22 of our book shows that the total of operating and capital expenses for a 5.2 mile light rail trip is $11.85. The significance, of course, is the Uber trip costs the taxpayer nothing; whereas the light rail trip costs the taxpayer the $11.85, less the average fare of $1.14, or $10.71. The riding habit as a useful tool for market analysis: In the book, I discuss the "riding habit," a metric in use in the days when transit was thriving. It is simply the annual transit boardings divided by the urban population. I should have emphasized its importance as an indicator of transit's share of the urban travel market. As we show in the book, the decennial riding habit nationally in 1880 was 46, rose to about 287 in 1926, and thereafter declined, wartime aside, to 40 in 2000. In 1880, horsecars were ascendent, shortly to be eclipsed by electric streetcars. A quote from the book about transit subsidies and Food Stamps: During the Congressional hearings on the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964, Congress was simultaneously holding hearings on the Food Stamp Act of 1964. The Transportation Act sought to socialize the transit bus industry and then subsidize it for everyone. The Food Stamp Act wisely kept the supermarkets in private hands and provide the disadvantaged with Food Stamps. The absurdity of the transit subsidy program can be readily understood if one imagines that Congress had done the opposite; left the bus industry in private hands and given the disadvantaged Bus Stamps, then socialized the supermarkets and sold food to everyone at a 70% discount from cost, as transit does. Readers should dwell on this awhile—especially the thought of the transit bureaucracy running the supermarkets. It is not as amusing as it first appears." The online footnotes: A bonus that comes with the print book are the online footnotes available under BOOK LINKS. The primary benefit for readers is that many of the 799 footnotes are linked to obscure documents that will not be easily found with the regular attribution. Another benefit is that in the print book itself many of the footnotes are truncated to save space whereas the online footnotes show the full footnote. | |||||||
