Planes, Trains, and Automobiles
Why students, schools, and governments should care about mass transit.
By Ryan Avent
November 6, 2007
AP Photo/Ted S. Warren
It’s a cliché, but it’s true: Americans love to drive. The Department of Transportation now reports that there are more cars than drivers in the United States. As the number of cars on U.S. roads has increased, driving has grown more expensive. Commuters spent over 4 billion hours in traffic last year alone—that adds up to about $78 billion in economic losses. Drivers have also had to endure a steep climb in gasoline costs. Last month, oil prices peaked at over $84 per barrel. And, of course, these statistics don’t even begin to capture the ways pollution, carbon emissions, and urban sprawl ravage our environment.
It’s often assumed the college students aren’t affected by the rising costs of driving. The stereotypical undergraduate doesn’t drive, and lives either in a small town or an enclave in a big city. Unfortunately, this stereotype isn’t true—college students are becoming increasingly car dependent, and are getting hit quite hard by the costs that hurt all U.S. drivers. Recent studies estimate that over 70 percent of college students own or have access to a car. Students spend about $15 billion per year on their automobiles, and they spend nearly $10,000 on average when purchasing a car. Students increasingly move around like the rest of society, driving between their homes, schools, and jobs.
There are plenty of good economic and environmental reasons to move away from such a car-dependent way of life, including the monetary and environmental costs. But larger, far-reaching change won’t occur until the federal government shifts some of its funding and regulatory priorities toward mass transit.
The Cost Factor
Driving isn’t cheap, and it’s not getting any cheaper.
Driving an automobile as a primary mode of transportation costs around $8,500 per year, and costs are on the rise. Since 2002, the inflation-adjusted price of a gallon of gas has more than doubled. Students who attend schools surrounded by expensive housing markets often have to move far from campus to save money on rent, but, if they commute to and from campus, they end up barely saving any money at all. Research by the Center for Housing Policy shows that for every dollar students save by moving away from expensive neighborhoods, they spend 77 cents on transportation. In areas with severe congestion, moving outward can end up costing more than is saved on cheaper housing.
The Carbon Factor
Driving is a principle contributor to global warming.
Tailpipes are one of the primary sources of carbon output in the United States. Despite increased awareness of the dangers of global warming, carbon emissions trends are worsening, largely because Americans drive more often and for longer distances. Studies conducted on transportation emissions suggest that switching from a car to public transportation would allow the average commuter to cut his or her carbon footprint by 30 percent. Recent carbon audits conducted in New York City, the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area, and the San Francisco Bay Area confirm this: These public-transportation friendly regions produce per-capita transportation emissions that are lower than the national average.
Without access to public transportation, individuals cannot respond to increased financial and environmental driving costs by switching to other modes of transportation. And since low- or zero-emission cars seem to be years or decades away from widespread use, public transit is currently our best means of reducing transportation-related carbon output. When public transit isn’t a possibility, one of the best alternatives is to carpool. Most universities have rideshare boards, and there’s even a Facebook application to assist those who need a lift.
What Can Universities Do?
Universities should plan their campuses to discourage automobile use.
While administrators face constant pressure to provide more student-friendly parking spots, a more sustainable, long-term solution would be to build campuses in a way that eliminates the need for parking. While constructing new roads and parking spots can lower the cost of driving, it also encourages students to use their cars more.
Campus planners should make it easier for students to get around without cars. For example, they can build communal buildings like sports facilities and classrooms close to residence halls, increasing opportunities for students to walk or use bicycles. If universities are forced to place new buildings far from campus centers, they should offer frequent and reliable transit services to compete with the convenience of automobiles.
Many schools already provide free or subsidized bus services to on- and off-campus locations. While these services may be expensive to operate, by increasing their scope and frequency, schools can reduce the need for investments in automobile infrastructure, can save students a considerable amount of money, and can reduce the carbon footprint of the average campus commuter.
In major cities, urban public transportation is often available. Some metropolitan transit systems, like those in Chicago and San Francisco, offer student transit subsidies, but even when no subsidy is available, transit use is likely to prove cheaper than driving over the long term. In many cities, however, mass transit construction, walkable development, and bicycle friendliness are not priorities.
Schools should also exert influence over planning in neighborhoods that surround their campuses. In many cities, student bodies comprise a significant share of the population and represent an important constituency for planners. Student demands for better transit systems are vital in achieving better university and urban design.
What Are Some of the Obstacles to Change?
Federal and local governments have to get on board, too.
Conscientious student decisions and better campus and city design can reduce the need for automobiles. But significant changes in driving habits, and improved transit options for students, can’t be achieved without a more progressive approach to transportation in state and federal governments. Students who pressure their administrations for better development policies serve an important purpose, but it’s important to recognize the ways in which local governments have their hands tied by misguided federal policy.
The overwhelming dominance of the automobile is a direct result of bad federal policy decisions. As the Washington Post recently reported, the federal government will provide about $42 billion next year for use on highway construction and maintenance—a fairly typical annual total. By contrast, the Federal Transit Authority has proposed only $1.4 billion in spending for transit next year, and the Senate recently authorized a transportation spending bill allocating $1.4 billion for Amtrak. The bill passed against the wishes of the Bush administration, which had sought the elimination of Amtrak’s $500 million annual operating subsidy, even though that subsidy is equivalent to only 0.05 percent of total annual highway spending.
While states are free to use federal highway allocations as they see fit, the FTA oversees a rigorous screening process for cities seeking transit money, demanding constant access to engineering and design information and strict adherence to ridership standards. And because Amtrak’s annual budget is subject to strict scrutiny, it is limited in the extent to which it explores new services and investments. It makes little sense to seek partners for new projects—like high-speed corridors—if the system faces the constant threat of deep budget cuts.
As long as the car is king, transportation in the United States will continue to waste commuters’ money, consume time that could be spent at work or at home, and spew pollution into our environment. It will take a concerted effort, both on the individual and policy levels, to make transit more efficient for college students—and for everyone else.
Ryan Avent writes on economic and urban issues for Grist and the Economist.
Social Bookmarking
--------
Comments
!
Pupemo (Public Personal Mover)
In order to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and reduce Green House Gas (CO2) output, we have to change our means of transportation, primarily commuter transportation. Public mass transportation for commuters is so inefficient that even with incentives, it will never be but a marginal choice for the general public. Trains and busses make multiple stops on the way to their destination; in addition, busses get stuck in the same traffic jam as any other car. Yet, we have to wean people away from using a 3,000 lb automobile, transporting a 200 lb person to the same destination five days a week. I envision a Public Personal Mover; you decide where and when to go and get there without stopping, waiting or transfers. It would have most of the advantages of the personal automobile without the disadvantages of mass transportation like keeping running all day and wasting energy even without any or very few passengers. The mover would weigh about 200 lbs, be propelled by an electric motor and ride along a rail which would also supply the power. The rail would be elevated above the traffic along streets or the medians of highways. With cell phones and credit card you would summon a single or two seat cabin at a mover station. Once seated you program your destination with GPS technology. The mover would then roll from the station rail to the main rail and navigate through the network to your destination without stopping. Cabins would be equipped with sensors to avoid bumping and computers would control the logistics of seamless entry and exit to and from the main rail and junctions as well as controlling heavy traffic. A system like this could be started along the medians of the highways from the commuter parking lots into the city and then be expanded as it increases in popularity. Experience will teach how many cabins would be required at any given time and location. Since commuter traffic is in one direction in the morning and the opposite at night, not too many cabins would have to make the return trip empty to satisfy the off rush hour traffic. I do not speak out of complete ignorance with this vision; I am an engineer who worked with and designed automatic production equipment for about 40 years. So I am well aware of all the advances that have been made in control technology. Somehow these advances were never translated into public transportation. I decided to publish this idea in the hope to inspire either a technical school or some private enterprise to further investigate its possibility and perhaps build a model or a toy. Without some revolutionary change in our every day behavior we will never be able to even make a dent in our ever increasing energy consumption.
Fred Rapp
— Fred Rapp - Feb 6, 10:30 AM - #