A relatively simple question that no one can answer

[taterguy]

How much does it cost the government to get people from Point A to Point B depending on their method of transportation?

That is, how much per mile does the government spend if a person walks, or drives or takes mass transit, etc?

I consider myself relatively smart but I have no clue.

Does anybody?

Shouldn't this be the starting point for discussions of where to spend money on infrastructure?

Or am I just nuts?

[villager]

1. Not nuts. It's a good question -- and I suspect much of the answer will come back "rails"

... and perhaps "dedicated bike paths..."

[taterguy]

6. But what's the price tag on those?

When I choose items at the store I know how much they cost.

That influences what I decide to buy.

Shouldn't the same principle apply to enormous government investments?

[villager]

22. it's a good question to ask -- as it a question about how highway building

continues to subsidize the auto industry...

[Fresh_Start]

2. People are not the only things being transported

so I think you might need to expand your analysis

[taterguy]

7. Fine, add freight

I'd still like to know the answer

[Fresh_Start]

9. here's a starting point

http://people.hofstra.edu/geotrans/eng/ch7en/conc7en/ch7c3en_2ed.html

I'm curious about why you're question is about the government cost of transportation rather than the general cost of transportation.

[taterguy]

11. I see no dollar figures in that link, just general principles

I'd like to know if it costs the government 45 cents a mile if I drive to work or 23 cents a mile if I ride my bike.

I'd like to know this because it's my tax dollars that are being spent. I don't care too much about what people do with their own money.

[Fresh_Start]

13. one of the diagrams has cost per type of transport

(bikes weren't included) but the costs were not in current dollars.
But I thought you needed to consider that there are direct and indirect costs: variable and fixed costs.

The costs vary by geography (among other things): think about the crossing the rockies versus crossing the plains.
Its probably not reasonable to think of this as a flat cost, which is what you are trying to think of it as.

I did transportation logistics in another lifetime: sometimes you need to travel 50 miles when you're trying to get 10 miles as the crow flies. And that ignores extraordinary disruptions like extreme weather

[Nickster]

3. Well, it depends on which contractor they use to do the transportation. Essentially, the answer is,

what's the fair price that the market has dictated and can the contractor back up those claims. Unless of course it's a no-bid contract, that's a whole different ball of wax. It's not an easy question that you ask.

[Swede Atlanta]

4. Taterguy....I'm not following your question

Could be this is the end of a really tough week at work.

If I understand your question correctly, I wouldn't think that the measure of where to spend money on infrastructure is related to the cost for the government to move someone from point A to B. I would think it would be based on various criteria including:
- Risk assessment - i.e. dangerous conditions, likelihood of failure, etc.
- Usage - i.e. how many people use this resource?
- Economic and social value - regardless of volume usage, is there some other reason why this asset should be rebuilt, refurbished, strengthened, etc. It could be a resource that carries tremendous economic value, etc. but isn't necessarily in the top tier based on volume

Just my two cents worth..... Cheers!!

[county worker]

5. The interstate highway system was built as a means of national defense.

A way to move things in times of crisis. So in that vein I think the money should be spent on what does the most good for the most people. Most people don't walk to work, it's too far, some can't take mass transit for one reason or the other. So spending money on those because it cost less to me isn't wise. It does nothing for those who have to drive which is the way the majority of us get around.

Now if you want to start making value judgments on the way people choose to get around leave me out.

[crispini]

8. If we had decent mass transit more places, then more people could take it.

And I think we all should be making value judgments on how we as a society choose to get around. It has societal (environmental) impacts far beyond our own personal lives.

[county worker]

12. If all things were constant maybe so. We can deal with the negative effects of how people

choose to get around.

Me personally, I can drive or take mass transit to work. I do both. I don't like riding in the bus with 55 other people and spending 1/2 to 1 hour longer each way to get to work. But it is cleaner since the bus burns natural gas and that's 55 less cars on the road. Also it saves me money since a monthly pass is cheaper than the gas to drive and it doesn't put the miles on my car. I do like to drive though and it is a trade off.

My fantasy would be that they would invent the means to let me drive without any negative social consequences.

I do not like the idea of putting value judgments on people for the way they choose to get around. That is too much like mass manipulation.

We should take what people prefer and take the negativity out of it.

[crispini]

14. In fact, though, the choices you are making

are impacted by larger choices. For example, in the early days of car development, car manufacturers actively campaigned against mass transit. You can find many cities that had trolleys and early forms of light rail that were actually taken out of service and done away with because of the lobbying and influence of the automotive industry. Furthermore, the federal government has historically subsidized development of roads in a way that it has not done with mass transit options. All of these are choices that make it SEEM simpler for you to take your car. If we had made different choices with our society's resources then you might have better options available to you. How about an express bus that would take less time for you to get there? Or more routes or more times that are more convenient?

I agree that it's not productive, as one individual to another individual, to judge a person who chooses to take their car. However, I think as a society, when we look at the large impacts of automotive transit on our lives and our culture, it's pretty clear that our love affair with the car is not good for us. Did you know that in cities where people walk and take public transit (like New York) the people there are actually thinner because they get more exercise? New York's rate of asthma and other respiratory tract ailments is lower than my city. They have virtually no "ozone alert" days. Dallas has WEEKS of red ozone alert days. Did you know that in LA, newborns exceed their toxicity levels of certain carcinogens within WEEKS of being born -- just by breathing the air? Not to mention the costs that urban sprawl give us in terms of taking up more land mass, loss of arable land, and wildlife habitat. Cars are bad for us, there's no getting around it, and we as a society need to start making better choices for our own self-interest.

[taterguy]

15. I'd prefer to be rich and good looking

But the reality is otherwise

[taterguy]

23. If national security is the goal we shouldn't be investing in automobile usage

In case you've forgotten, the last attack on America was financed with petro-dollars.

And relying on a resource that's predominantly produced overseas does terrible things to our trade deficit.

So as far getting people around, promoting walking and biking is best for national security. Those methods of transportation are fueled by food, most of which is grown here.

[crispini]

10. I bet there are some highway and transportation engineers out there who could answer part

of your question.

That said, I think there is the cost to build something, and then there are all the other costs factored into it as well. For example, maintenance. And, how about larger societal costs? Roads, for example, pollute a lot more than light rail does. If your municipality is currently dealing with massive fines from the EPA for not being able to get their air quality under control, that's something else to factor in. And, how about the medical costs to all of those kids who are struggling with asthma because they can't breathe? A lot of them are on CHIP (government insurance) or go to county hospitals (taxes pay for those too).

[Thothmes]

16. Are you refering to the Federal Government

or to the state or local government.

[taterguy]

17. All government

I don't care how it's divided up, it's still money from my pocket that's paying for it

[rug]

18. If Point B is Fresno, too much.

[taterguy]

19. California has roads that charge tolls for cars and let bikes ride for free

I thought that was kind of cool

[rug]

20. As it should be.

[AdHocSolver]

21. The biggest cost is subsidizing the oil industry including paying for the Iraq war.

Add the cost of the Iraq war (actually both Iraq wars), the cost of the enormous U.S. trade deficit based partly on huge oil imports needed to run the gas-guzzling vehicles most Americans drive, plus oil company profits for the last several years and you have a baseline numerical figure.

A better question would be how much does it cost each American to support the automobile-based transportation system we subsidize.

[taterguy]

24. I wish someone knew the answer to that question