Would I rather Drive?
Evaluating Possible Justifications For Favoring Automobile Transport
(Litman, 2004b; “Evaluating Criticism of TDM,” VTPI, 2006)
• Argument: Automobile travel is modern and efficient, with growing demand that should be
accommodated. Alternative modes (walking, cycling, public transit) are outdated and inefficient, with declining demand.
Response: Per capita vehicle travel peaked about the year 2000. Demographic (aging population), economic (higher fuel costs) and shifts in consumer preferences (increased demand for urban living and active transport) favor alternative modes. Improving mobility options can efficiently address many transport problems (congestion, pollution, inaffordability, etc.).
• Argument: The large number of households that choose to live in suburban communities
demonstrates consumer preference for automobile dependency.
Response: Market surveys indicate that many of the attributes that motivate consumers to choose suburban locations are features, such as security, good schools and newer building stock, rather than attributes directly dependent on automobile-dependency, that a significant and growing portion of suburban residents would prefer more accessible, multi-modal communities if they had these other attributes (Belden, Russonello and Stewart, 2004).
• Argument: Americans (or Germans, Italians, etc.) love their cars. They will not give it up.
Response: Automobile travel that people value will continue. Efficient pricing simply allows
consumers to choose the amount of driving they really value.
• Argument: Public transit services receive an excessive share of transportation funding. For example, about 20% of total federal transport funds are spent on public transit services, although less than 2% of total trips are made by transit. Critics consider this wasteful and unfair.
Response: There are several reasons that transit receives relatively large subsidies:
A significant portion of subsidies (about half) are intended to provide basic mobility for
non-drivers. This requires service at times and locations with low demand, and costly
special services to accommodate people with disabilities, such as wheelchair lifts.
A significant portion of transit service is provided in dense urban areas where any form of
mobility is costly to provide, so urban transit costs should be compared with the cost of
accommodating additional automobile travel under comparable conditions.
Transit project costs include vehicles, lines (rail or busways) and terminals, so transit project
costs should be compared with combined vehicle, roadway and parking costs.
During most of the last half-century transit received relatively little investment. Significant
new funding can be justified to catch up with decades of underfunding.
Consumer Impacts
It may seem counterintuitive that consumers would benefit from reforms that increase
their vehicle operating costs and reduce their mobility. However, consumers would enjoy
the following offsetting benefits and savings:
• Reduced traffic and parking congestion. Efficient pricing increases efficiency by allowing
higher-value trips to outbid lower-value trips.
• Reduced accident risk and pollution exposure.
• Lower taxes, building costs and retail prices due to reduced road and parking subsidies.
• Improved transport and land use options, including better walking and cycling conditions,
improved ridesharing and public transit services, and better integration among modes.
• More accessible land use patterns, reducing travel distances and improving travel options.
• Reduced chauffeuring responsibilities for drivers, due to better travel options for non-drivers.
• Improved security, prestige and public support of alternative modes.
Bookmark with: