I'm going to try _a thing_. There are two related phenomena regarding #cars and #PublicTransport that I basically never see discussed. I wrote an article about these two things which includes two very clear definitions. I want to see if I can get some reach to disseminate these two things like a mind virus.

Boost if you like. Or don't. I'm not your boss.

The premise: when you own a #car, it is cheaper to drive the car. But: we want to get people out of their cars, even while they still own cars.

The definitions:

- Sunk cost discount: for as long as you own a car, it is cheaper relative to public transport to use that car for individual journeys, even though you would save money if you got rid of the car and exclusively used public transport.

- Trip cost scaling problem: for each additional passenger taking a journey together, the cost per passenger becomes lower when travelling by car, but higher when travelling by public transport.

The article: https://www.carmenbianca.eu/en/post/2023-07-27-the-sunk-cost-discount-and-the-trip-cost-scaling-problem/

Shamelessly tagging @notjustbikes @TheWarOnCars @ianwalker

#cycling #bancars #urbanism #train #bus #metro #tram #SunkCostDiscount #TripCostScalingProblem

The sunk cost discount and the trip cost scaling problem

Cars are more expensive, but not when you already own one

Carmen Bianca Bakker

A tiny addendum update after receiving a lot of warm feedback on the article :) Thank you.

There are many, many, many reasons why people take the #car over #publictransport. The two phenomena outlined in the article are barely a factor in some cases. I am aware of this, but wanted to hyper-focus the article on one thing only: the cost of public transport for car owners. I did this for a simple selfish reason; I want my family to visit me more often. They don’t much like long car rides, but the alternative journey by #train makes no economic sense for them.

Furthermore, I’m aware of the externalised costs of taking a car, and did mention them in the article, but it bears repeating: the only reason car journeys are so cheap is because we subsidise the hell out of cars and their #infrastructure and off-load all the damages incurred by them (opportunity cost, productivity loss, #health, #environment, #climate) onto society. But everything else remaining the same, I’d still like my family to be able to visit me by train more cheaply than by car.

#bancars

@carmenbianca it's like buying a car is an investment in the promise of that public subsidy, which can only be collected by driving. So the low marginal cost is matched like 10x with subsidy (especially in the US) and Engineered threats to your safety / status / dignity should you choose not to collect it. (Recently, a librarian waiting at a bus stop in Portland was hit with a car by a four-lane stroad, which we know is deadly, but refuse to change without ten years & ~$50M to "add safety" 💸)

@enobacon Good point. Through that lens, any money spent on improving the safety of a road for other road users (incl. separated bike lanes) can be viewed as a #subsidy to cars. This is what people mean when they say '#bike lanes are car #infrastructure'.

The only reason these safety features are needed is because cars need to be accommodated in that space, and cars are murder machines.

(Of course, the features aren't strictly 'needed' if you're sufficiently much of a sadist, but I think the point stands.)

This is incidentally why I'm a little critical of the praise the #Netherlands receive for their bike infrastructure. It's better in so much as it's doing the bare minimum to accommodate other modes of transportation alongside cars. But the Netherlands are still a car paradise all the same.

#bancars #cycling

@carmenbianca isn't about 90% of the NL bikeway network actually just streets which have had car traffic reduced and tamed, e.g. by simple modal filters, like bollards that divert car traffic back to main roads? The #ontvlechten, or separating routes for cars from bikes, makes driving slightly less convenient, but if enough people bike/bus, you have less congestion despite reduced number of car lanes. Car users have access, but not in five redundant ways and to the exclusion of all others.

@enobacon As with all things, It Depends™.

Where I grew up: absolutely not. 90% of the bicycle infrastructure is, well, the street. There is no bicycle infrastructure. But the streets are sufficiently narrow, low-volume, and low-speed that it makes sense. The main road through the village just has a painted bicycle gutter, which becomes a separated bike lane along the rural arterial road outside of the village boundaries.

But in a minority of Dutch cities, yes, cars have reduced access/priority in some areas. The caveat is that this also happens to be to the motorists' benefit. It's quicker to take the indirect route, and it's quicker now that fewer people are in cars. It's not car-_centric_, but they're not exactly being disadvantaged, either.

Besides, having moved to #Belgium (a far more car-centric country), it's hard to say that Dutch motorists get a second-grade experience. Dutch car infrastructure is absolutely world-class quality, second to none. Find attached a representative picture of the Dutch-Belgian border.

The Netherlands are a paradise for motorists.

@carmenbianca @enobacon that lovely photo would benefit from an alt text description (alt text added, thanks so much).
@dr2chase @enobacon Done, thank you!
@carmenbianca @enobacon I think I will delete my suggestion, you're clearly better at words than I am.
@dr2chase better to just edit into thanks for the alt text?
@carmenbianca @enobacon In my Dutch neighbourhood (built in ‘90/‘00) a separate bike path runs through the middle, cars have to go around. Cars can use a ‘ring road’ but that is the long way round. Where cars and bikes share the residential streets the speed limit is 30 km/h. Since these streets are used only by residents, traffic volume is very low.