I know this is a bit old. But I can drive finally!!!

[joshc]

I'm still learning to drive, but have my actual practical test on 23rd April. Shortly thereafter, I will be buying a car - who knows what though. Where I live, quite a few things are far away (although college and Uni are within walking distance).

I don't like buses, for many reasons: they are not clean, bus drivers are depressing and sometimes rude, bus tickets here are overpriced, the bus drivers are terrible at driving, and the buses themselves are very noisy.

 

[II2II]

Bitching aside:

There is one big difference between your decision not to take public transit and my decision not to drive. Chances are that my decision to walk, cycle, and take public transit will have a smaller impact on your life than your decision to drive will have on my life. (Consider road safety and the environment.)

Bitching considered:

Funny thing is I don't like cars, even when I don't have to drive them or ride in them.

Motorists are either arrogant or don't pay attention. A few of them are outright homicidal. Vehicles are dirty and very noisy. I have to live with this filth and noise every day of my life. On top of that, private vehicles tend to make heavy use of infrastructure and that infrastructure is expensive to maintain. As a tax-payer, I'm as much of a contributor to that infrastructure as you are.

The worst part though is their total disregard for pedestrians, cyclists, and even other motorists. I don't know how often I've seen people park in bike lanes or on sidewalks simply because there is nowhere else to park. So their convenience trumps public safety every time. Come to think of it, I have a hard time recalling when a vehicle last stopped for a stop sign, unless it involved my stepping out in front of them. And a lot of motorists will outright ignore pedestrian crossings even if a pedestrian is standing in it and they have plenty of time to stop. The situation is so bad that the city has started replacing the flashing light crossings with regular traffic lights. You see, a lot of motorists believe that they are above the law. (Then again, I've also seen some bone-headed moves by cyclists and pedestrians. But in most cases, they are not in control of a piece of heavy machinery that will kill.)

 

[Christopher]

I can drive, just not legally.... I mostly just move cars on and off the driveway, stuff like that. Now to not use two feet when i drive.

I do however since I don't have the cash to drive I pretty much bike everywhere, weather permitting of course.

 

[jeffrey3]

On top of that, private vehicles tend to make heavy use of infrastructure and that infrastructure is expensive to maintain. As a tax-payer, I'm as much of a contributor to that infrastructure as you are.

Not quite. Most road funding comes from fuel taxes and registration fees. On the other hand, subsidies for public transport are funded by everyone.

 

[II2II]

I really should go around digging up figures on land use, pollution, and road maintainance as well as construction costs one day because people always bring up that fuel tax and registration fee bit.

Why? A couple of reasons. A few years ago I did search for some numbers on road maintainance costs. In the cheapest jurisdictions, it was over $8000 per lane mile. But that was highways. Put in context, assuming that gasoline cost $3.50 per gallon and that the entire cost of gasoline constituted the fuel tax it would take over 2200 gallons of gasoline per year to pay off one lane-mile. Assuming that you drive a gas guzzler at 15 miles per gallon, over 140 vehicles would have to use that lane-mile in the course of a year to pay off maintainance costs. Sounds reasonable, but ...

I took the extreme case. You can multiply that figure by 6.5 to account for the highest fuel tax being 52 cents per gallon instead of 3.50 per gallon. So you are now up to 910 vehicles per lane-mile per year in the most stingy state (Nevada). Still not too bad.

But after that I just don't have the numbers to figure out what the actual usage would have to be. The $8000 was the lowest costs per lane mile in the state with the poorest maintained roads, and it is by no means typical. I also know that I was rounding down a lot to make the number favour motorists. I don't know what maintainance this figure covers. Does it cover bridges? Does it cover accident clean-up? No idea. What I do know is that it doesn't cover construction costs.

Construction costs of a major road in an urban centre (yes, I know I'm now mixing road types) is in the millions of dollars per lane mile. That's about 100 times higher than the maintaince costs. Again, I wish that I knew what that covered. Does it include re-construction of roads? Does it include the cost of acquiring land? Does it cover buried roads and raised roads? I don't know.

Even so, 910 vehicles per year may cover some roads but it would barely cover other roads. Particularly in rural areas. If real fuel efficency and real maintainance costs bump that up by a factor of 2 or 3, you're in trouble.

There are all sorts of factors that drive up the cost of building and maintaining infrastructure and I'm not confident enough to say that the gas tax covers it. Granted, almost any motorist will say that it does because they would rather say that they are paying the costs while saying that transit users aren't paying the costs. Which is fictitious. IIRC, transit users in this city cover about 70% of the operating costs for public transit. And this city spends a glut of money on low revenue services and routes (like wheel trans and routes in low density areas), while the bulk of people are forced to pay more than their share on revenue generating routes.

I'm sorry for the brain dump there, but I just wanted to demonstrate that the issue is more complex than a one sentence dismissal.

 

[jeffrey3]

There are all sorts of factors that drive up the cost of building and maintaining infrastructure and I'm not confident enough to say that the gas tax covers it. Granted, almost any motorist will say that it does because they would rather say that they are paying the costs while saying that transit users aren't paying the costs. Which is fictitious. IIRC, transit users in this city cover about 70% of the operating costs for public transit. And this city spends a glut of money on low revenue services and routes (like wheel trans and routes in low density areas), while the bulk of people are forced to pay more than their share on revenue generating routes.
I'm sorry for the brain dump there, but I just wanted to demonstrate that the issue is more complex than a one sentence dismissal.

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/ohim/hs05/finance.htm

According to the chart "Funding for highways and disposition of highway-user revenues, all units of Government – summary", 59% of highway revenues in the US comes directly from highway users. A further 16% comes from investment income and bonds. 26% comes from property taxes, general funds, and other taxes.

According to "Transit operator receipts and disbursements for operations", on average, 34% of operating costs come from passenger fares.

 

[II2II]

Which may explain why fares seem so much cheaper in your neck of the woods. It is $2.25 per token when you buy 10 tokens in Toronto. (I think a cash fare is $2.75.)

The irony is, Toronto has heavy use of its public transportation system along with an extensive bus and rail network and frequent service on many routes, unlike these places with cheaper fares.