Study: Public Transportation Saves $6,200 Per Household, 1.4 Billion Gallons of Gasoline

[jpak]

Groundbreaking New Analysis: Public Transportation Saves $6,200 Per Household, 1.4 Billion Gallons of Gasoline

http://www.apta.com/media/releases/070109_energy_report.cfm

<snip>

Public transportation usage reduces U.S. gasoline consumption by 1.4 billion gallons each year - or the equivalent of 108 million cars filling up, almost 300,000 each day. These savings result from the efficiency of carrying multiple passengers in each vehicle; the reduction in traffic congestion from fewer automobiles on the roads; and the varied sources of energy for public transportation. If twice as many Americans had the choice of taking public transportation, these gasoline savings would at least double to 2.8 billion gallons each year.


Households that are likely to use public transportation on a given day save over $6,200 every year, compared to a household with no access to public transportation service. These households have two workers, one car and are within three-quarters of a mile of public transportation.


Who says there's no such thing as a free lunch?" Millar said. "According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average U.S. household spends $5,781 on food - and people who are likely to take public transportation can easily save more than that in a year."


As the new Congress begins working on energy legislation, we call on them to make sure that public transportation plays a central role in reducing our dependence on foreign oil," Millar said.

<more>

[Warpy]

1. They keep talking about a light rail line in this town

that would run the length of the main drag, old Route 66. The tax whiners and SUV whiners usually manage to get it shot down.

The longer we delay mass transit in this country, the more expensive it will become and the more disastrous escalating energy prices will be to the economy.

[MADem]

2. Good grief, I have a couple of cars, and I don't spend that much per year total on them

My cars are old and paid for, they get incredible gas mileage, being subcompacts, they are well maintained, cheap to insure, I don't drive much, so that paradigm doesn't apply to me at all. If I spend five hundred a year maintaining both of them, that's a lot. I probably put a tank of gas in each of them once a month, or less, save the odd long-distance car trip.

I suppose if you are driving every day, making a car payment, paying up the wazoo for car insurance, and so forth, you probably could spend that much every year. But I don't come even close.

[NickB79]

4. My girlfriend and I each bought newer cars in the past two years

Mine was a brand-new Scion xA, her's a used Malibu. Between us, we pay $500/mo in car payments so that's $6000/yr right there (but that's because we pay much more than the minimum required payments to get them paid off faster), and car insurance is $2400/yr because, since they're not paid off yet, we have to put full coverage on them as required by our car loans. Both get good gas mileage (mine 40 mpg, her's 30 mpg highway), so we only fill up every 2 weeks s or so, and we don't drive excessively. No maintainance issues so far. So yea, between two newer cars, we're paying out the ass for them. We'd take the bus if there was bus service in this suburban craphole, or walk if half the stores were within walking range or even had sidewalks! Unfortunately our jobs and her college are here, so there's no moving anytime soon. We're just looking forward to 2 years from now when our cars are paid off and she's done with school so we can move closer to my job (hopefully within walking distance), she can get a job in her field, and we can get more basic car insurance.

[MADem]

7. I can see how those costs might add up, especially if one buys newer cars

You have my sympathies, but hey, enjoy your jazzy cars while you are young. Everyone has to do it, I guess. It's a rite of passage....remember it fondly. Also, take good care of them--I have one car in storage that still runs, it's a 1966!!!! I may bust it out when one of my other two bites the dust! You could be the old geezer on the block in 2050, driving his same old well-maintained Scion that he's converted to a garbage burner or nuclear power, or what have you!

I got that "new car Jones" out of my system in my youth. Now I am a cheap old fart, and I like a total clunker in good, indeed great, condition with low mileage--helps in an "aggressive driving" situation, too--the mean bastard in the brand new Mercedes SUV WILL back off when you're driving a twenty-plus year old road warrior tank. I have sold the rest of my family on them as well, and we buy them off geezers older than me who've given up their cars at long last, as they go out even less than I do (and thus, cab fare is cheaper) or they rely on the generosity of doting family, as one should as one ages.

It helps to live near geezers, of course, so there's a regular supply of these sorts of vehicles!

[LeftyMom]

6. Me either.

Hell my car cost quite a bit less than that, even if you throw in all the maintainance in the three years or so since I got the thing. My insurance costs less than a monthly bus pass and I know I save more by not having to go to the closest grocery store, office store, etc than I spend on gas, because I didn't have a car for the first 25 years of my life and I know all the hidden expenses that went along with limited ability to get around and added transit time to get anywhere I could go.

I do go through about $30-50 in gas a month, since I have to run LeftyKid to his father's house across town a couple times a week (thank goodness for my car, the bus doesn't even go there) and having a practical car (I drive a little Saturn wagon) means whenever anything bigger than a grocery sack needs delivered I'm the one that does it.

I'm all for transit (did I mention I was 25 when I finally learned to drive?) but I don't think it's realistic to appeal to people's cheapness as a way to promote it. 1. It promotes the idea that transit is for the underclasses. 2. People will pay for convenience. 3. People won't care if it's cheap if it sucks- this is why WalMart still has competitors.

People use transit in places where it gets them where they want to go quickly. My Dad hasn't ridden a Sacramento city bus since 1985. I remember when he did- our car broke down a little over a mile from home and it was a scorching hot day, too hot to walk with small kids, we hopped the bus, got some tools and went back to fix it. We waited in the sun for ages, the bus finally came, somebody on it bothered my Dad with some copies of Watchtower, and then the bus didn't get us that much closer to home. No father than we could have walked, even with my baby sister in tow. (The bus system is a little better here now, especially in that area because there's a light rail stop nearby so a lot of buses come and go.) He'd never take one willingly because they're slow, they smell and they don't go anywhere he wants to go. But every time we go into San Francisco for a football game, we take BART and MUNI to get to Candlestick. Why? It's a bit more expensive than driving in and parking but it's faster than waiting in traffic and he gets to read the sports page on the way to the game.

Make transit convenient and fast and people will ride it. If it's slow, out of the way and smells like BO and pee (like Sacramento Regional Transit) nobody who has another option will use it.

[MADem]

8. Good, and honest points, all. If only we could develop smart transport

that really IS convenient (and not stinky). Part of the problem is the way we live as a society. The suburbs MANDATE cars....so I guess we will have to make those "golf cart" areas, where people can drive their cute little electric carts to the subway...because we KNOW these folks ain't all biking or walking! And we need public transport that is continuous, not a long, nasty wait in the elements...because people don't like to wait or be too hot or too cold. It also has to be reasonably priced, not just for the poor, but for everyone else, who won't add up the cost of the car over a year, but will be the first to bitch about the cost of the metro pass.

[kestrel91316]

3. This pretty much sums it up:

"......Who says there's no such thing as a free lunch?" Millar said. "According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average U.S. household spends $5,781 on food - and people who are likely to take public transportation can easily save more than that in a year.""

Let's get to work on it, people!

[Deja Q]

5. Hmm, lil' Michele Bachmann claimed public transport would COST $7,200 per person.

Still, that's why I didn't vote for her.

Oh, and her insane asylum-worthy comment about how God told her to run for Congress had something to do with it too... :eyes: (Who needs God when she's been sitting in there long enough, career politicians (of either side) are worthless, and most people who claim God talks to them actually do get put into an asylum.)