tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4153985804832811048.post1027502774804607336..comments2024-03-29T03:50:00.893-04:00Comments on Urban kchoze: Economics of transit: which is more efficient, buses or cars?simval84http://www.blogger.com/profile/10615053214354191224noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4153985804832811048.post-78507457648915458452014-08-07T12:14:25.757-04:002014-08-07T12:14:25.757-04:00Thanks for the posting.
This issue is discussed ...Thanks for the posting. <br /><br />This issue is discussed in the 'Comparing Transit and Automobile Costs' section of my report, "Evaluating Public Transit Benefits and Costs" (http://www.vtpi.org/tranben.pdf ). <br /><br />Yes, transit is far more efficient in terms of ownership, operating, road and parking space requirements, accident risk, energy consumption and pollution emissions, and high quality public transit can be a catalyst for more accessible and multi-modal land use development. These can provide significant savings and economic benefits. <br /><br />Of course, not all trips are suitable for transit, so the most efficient transport system offers travellers a variety of high quality mobility options and incentives to use the most efficient mode for each trip: convenient walking and cycling for local errands, high quality transit for travel on major urban corridors, and efficiently priced automobile travel (motorists pay directly for using roads and parking facilities, and for the congestion, accident risk and pollution they impose) which tests users' willingness to pay for the costs of such travel.<br /><br />Public transit tends to experience scale economies and provides basic mobility for non-drivers, both of which can justify subsidies.<br /><br />Best wishes,<br />-Todd Litman<br />Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org)Todd Litmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02133632567928144806noreply@blogger.com