Comments on: The Assumption of Inconvenience

By: Nathanael

Nathanael — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 02:03:24 +0000

Good point. I’ve found travel to be infinitely more convenient in most of Europe, where I can walk and take frequent, fast trains, than in the US, where I am often forced to drive (ugh).

By: mattotoole

mattotoole — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 21:44:11 +0000

Sell the benefits — not the collective benefits, but the personal ones. For example, how much better it is to be able to walk, bike, or ride transit, instead of having to sit in traffic. I’ve lived both ways, and I definitely prefer the former.

By: Kenney

Kenney — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 21:00:00 +0000

Thanks, Ryan. Looking forward to your next piece!

By: Ryan Avent

Ryan Avent — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 18:45:55 +0000

Kenney, I’m saying that a lost hour of work will cost a higher income person more, because they earn more per hour. There is an offsetting effect — for poorer workers, the marginal dollar is of greater value — but I think the net effect of reduced congestion on drivers would be a benefit for high earners.

This doesn’t necessarily mean that transit will always be the mode of the poor. It’s time that’s important, so where transit options are fast and convenient, upper income workers will ride along with everyone else. As you note, Metro provides very convenient service between high income neighborhoods and job centers, and so many upper income professionals avail themselves of it.

By: Kenney

Kenney — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 18:31:20 +0000

Ryan, thanks for another great article, as usual. When you have a chance, please clarify/expand on what you meant by saying “Higher income households (which will tend to place a greater value on work hours lost to congestion) would enjoy a speedy ride into the office.” I’m particularly concerned with the implication that value on time goes up as income goes up, because I believe lower income people have just as much if not more to lose being stuck in traffic.

Also, that line seems to imply that investments in transit will cut road congestion by diverting poorer motorists to buses and rail, while the freed up road space as a result will go to benefit higher income motorists (“speedy ride into the office”). As an aside, it kind of reminds me of a funny Onion headline that read “98% of Americans Support Public Transportation for Other People.” Anyhow, my point is, I notice that transit advocates too often make implicit or explicit arguments that transit can’t capture a significant amount of ridership among higher income individuals.

Consider that a recent study by WMATA concluded that the median income of subway users in Washington, DC is about $103,000. I understand that there are unique characteristics to the demographics here that aren’t found anywhere else in the country, but it still proves to me that good transit can get almost anyone out of their car.