White House: Transit Inflation Outstripping Private Transportation
by Elana Schor
The White House's annual economic report, in addition to its endorsement of inter-city rail and transit spending, also sheds more light on transit inflation, which is often reported anecdotally in the many cities struggling with fare hikes but rarely put in statistical terms by economists.
(Photo: UPI)The changes in price for what Americans pay for food (218.249 in 2009) and housing, including utilities (217.057), have kept pace with the overall CPI, according to the White House. But in the specific category of transportation, the difference was notable -- private transportation, a category that includes new or used vehicles and motor fuel, had a CPI of 174.762 in 2009, while transit's CPI hit 236.348 last year.
To be sure, transit costs were not the most out-off-control expense singled out by the White House. Inflation for medical care reached 375.613 in 2009, and the cost of shelter, not including utilities, was 249.354 last year.
Still, the palpable disparity between the costs of private and public modes of transportation is a trend that should be catching the attention of policymakers on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue.
By Baltimore Spokes
I've bloged about how the costs of cars are being supplemented by our tax dollars and this report hints that cars are getting more of a supplement then mass transit but a resent video by Transportation For America introduced something not often talked about starting at 0:59: U.S. military actions in oil rich nations to "protect" the resources we so desperately need.
Which got me thinking if that works to keep the cost of using a car down why not use the same mentality to keep the cost of mass transit down? Surly there is some un-American terrorist country where we could get cheaper buses and trains from, like lets say Canada. Talk about being un-American, despite being a part of the same continent they refuse to accept the American life, parts even speak French! It does not get much more un-American then that.
OK, I am being very tongue and cheek but still I have to question why is there so much emphases on keeping single occupancy vehicles cheep when there is no way we can keep up with the demands for new roads that over use of the single occupancy vehicles require? We need to stress appropriate transportation and if efforts are made to keep gas cheep, then the benefits should largely go to commercial interests that truly need to use the roadways and the single occupancy vehicle should be the last to benefit, at least until we can keep up with the demand for new roadways.