Responding to Randal O’Toole’s
“A Desire Named Streetcar”
10 Ways He Gets It Wrong
Randal O’Toole’s latest
report maintains that federal incentives are causing communities
to invest in rail transit projects. Public transportation, he
suggests, should be focused primarily on bus service and targeted
to inner city and “transit dependent” communities.
The report ignores a variety of indicators of the value and demand
for expanded transportation choices and misrepresents the federal
role in transportation investment.
Todd Litman of the Victoria Transport Policy Institute has written
an analysis and response to O'Toole's report. Download
the PDF of "Responding to 'Desire Named Streetcar'".
Ridership.
O’Toole’s report argues that transit funding is “wasteful”
because transit ridership is in decline when compared to auto
use. This argument is completely undermined by recent data. According
to the most recent data, transit ridership increased by 3.3% in
the third quarter of 2005 while auto use, measured by vehicle
miles traveled, declined over the same period by .2%. In fact,
transit ridership has been increasing consistently in recent years.
Since1991, transit has hit a twenty year high and is on the rise.
For example, 9.6 billion trips were taken on U.S. local public
transportation systems in 2004, an increase of 2.11% over the
previous year. This growth rate was faster than highway vehicle
travel, which grew by 1.14%. Since 1995, public transportation
use has grown by nearly 22%, faster than any other mode of travel.
These increases are even more striking when one considers that
Americans have far more access to an automobile than they do transit.
The U.S. has over 8.2 million lane miles of roads. Only 4.3% of
those roads are served by transit.
Recent spikes in gas prices have led to some dramatic increases
in transit use, and early data suggests that these travel habit
changes appear to be lasting. A survey of transit agencies found
that a third of all agencies experienced a double-digit percentage
increase in transit ridership from November 2004 to November 2005.
Communities reporting significant growth include Montgomery, AL
(20.3%), Tulsa, OK (22%), Salt Lake City, UT (17.7%), and Kansas
City, MO (13%). Eighty-eight percent of the surveyed agencies
reported that ridership continued at higher rates than a year
earlier, despite the fact that gas prices went down in November.
Back to Top
Ridership: Light Rail vs. Buses.
O’Toole attempts to downplay overall transit ridership growth
by suggesting that growth in light rail and commuter rail use
comes at the expense of bus ridership. Again, the ridership data
runs counter to his claim. Transit ridership data for 2004 found
growth in all transit categories. This trend has continued in
2005. For example, the most updated information for 2005 saw light
rail use up by 8.8%, commuter rail up 4.6%, subways up 4.3% and
buses up 2.5%. While it is true that light rail use has been expanding
faster than bus ridership, this is largely due to expanded service.
In spite of the growth and popularity of light rail systems, bus
usage has not suffered. Bus ridership has increased every year
for the past decade. Bus service is also continuing to expand
into new communities.
Back to Top
Federal Subsidies. O’Toole
points out the increase in federal funding for transit since the
passage of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act
in 1991. For O’Toole, this growth in funding not only comes
at the expense of highways but also exceeds growth in public transportation
ridership. However, he ignores the fact that while federal public
transportation funding has increased since ISTEA in total dollars,
funding has remained essentially flat when measured as a component
of total federal transportation spending. For every dollar in
federal money spent on surface transportation, transit transportation
receives less than twenty cents. The proportion of federal spending
between highways and public transportation has remained roughly
unchanged since 1991.
Back to Top
Local Support for Public Transportation
Funding. O’Toole’s report claims that new
investment in public transportation is driven by federal financial
incentives. His solution is to “devolve” transit funding
entirely to state and local governments. As noted above, federal
investment in public transportation relative to overall transportation
spending has been static for more than a decade. In addition,
the ever greater competition for federal transportation funding
for public transportation projects has led to a gradual decline
in the percentage of federal support for individual transit projects.
While federal law requires local communities to self-fund at least
20% of public transportation projects, most communities now promise
to cover at least half of the funding in order to be competitive
for federal investment. Highway spending is not subject similar
requirements.
O’Toole’s suggestion that the demand for expanded
transportation choices and new public transportation options is
driven by federal funding is further undermined when one considers
the fact that most communities put the issue of raising local
tax revenue for public transportation to the voters. These ballot
measures have passed with astonishing frequency. Last year 84%
of all such measures were approved by voters. In 2004, taxpayers
approved nearly 80% of proposed measures, generating nearly $55
billion in local public transportation investment. That amount
is more than the entire federal funding commitment to public transportation
through 2009 in the newly enacted transportation bill.
Back to Top
Public Transportation Subsidies.
O’Toole portrays public transportation as heavily subsidized
when compared to highways. By his calculations, transit receives
more than double the public subsidy for highways. His numbers,
however, are misleading and do not include the true extent of
highway costs and spending. Eighty percent of federal transportation
funding goes to highways. Further, fares and local taxes account
for the largest share of public transportation funding. In 2003,
roughly half (47.4%) of all public transportation capital costs
were covered by users through fares and voter-approved local taxes.
The same is true of operating expenses where more than half of
the total (50.7%) is provided by users and local citizens.
Back to Top
Investment Criteria. O’Toole
suggests that the decision to invest in public transportation
is largely irrational and unsupported by objective analysis. Ironically,
only transit projects must demonstrate value and validity prior
to securing federal dollars. The Federal Transit Administration
evaluates every new request for rail transit projects in five
categories: mobility improvements, environmental benefits, operating
efficiencies, cost effectiveness, supportive land use, and local
financial commitment. Highway spending is not subject to similar
scrutiny.
Back to Top
Transportation Planning. According
to O’Toole, the transportation planning process required
under federal law leads to unwarranted transit projects. He acknowledges
that the law requires public participation but claims that only
“professional lobbyists” are truly involved. The reality
is that planning offers citizens a rare opportunity to truly have
a voice in local transportation decisions. Planners, by law, must
involved a wide array of groups in the process. New provisions
in federal law require the use of visualization, internet, and
scenario planning technologies that further help citizens understand
their options and choose a future that fulfills their vision and
supports their values. It is also important to note that these
plans must demonstrate that proposed projects are fiscally realistic.
Back to Top
Air Quality and Public Transportation.
Among the programs O’Toole singles out for criticism is
the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality program (CMAQ). He argues
that the program should not be used to fund transit projects.
He also asserts that it is unwise to link transportation funding
and air quality. However, there is considerable evidence that
public transportation provides tangible environmental benefits.
A 2002 study found that public transportation produces 95% less
carbon monoxide, 92% fewer volatile organic compounds and nearly
half as much cardon dioxide for every passenger mile traveled
as compared to private vehicle travel.
The value of the CMAQ program in reducing air pollution was recently
documented in a National Academy of Sciences report. O’Toole
also vastly mischaracterizes CMAQ funding. The program is only
a very small part of total transportation funding, accounting
for less than 1% of the total. Additionally, on average more than
a third of all CMAQ resources have gone toward the traffic flow
improvement projects he touts. He claims the air quality programs
are a “faulty centralized process.” Yet, CMAQ funds
are flexible, efficient resources with few mandates that states
and localities have used to improve regional air quality.
Back to Top
Anti-Highway Lobbying. Another
program O’Toole criticizes as “promoting wildly extravagant
spending” on public transportation is the federal Transportation
and Community System Preservation program (TCSP). He claims that
TCSP dollars fund lobbying campaigns by organizations hostile
to highway construction. The claim does square with the facts
of the program. TCSP is a small program that funds plans, research
and projects that address, according to the Federal Highway Administration,
“the relationships between transportation, community, and
system preservation and to identify private sector-based initiatives.”
Projects must be sponsored by states, local governments or public
agencies. While non-profit groups can be partners, they cannot
use the funding for lobbying. An examination of the 39 projects
funded in FY2005 shows that projects include pedestrian safety
initiatives; several highway access, interchange and improvement
projects; bike and trail plans; and, downtown transportation studies.
It is also important to note that in FY2005 TCSP provided $21.2
million. The total federal commitment to highways in the same
fiscal year was just short of $35 billion.
Back to Top
Transit Value & Demand.
A key argument in “A Desire Named Streetcar” is the
notion that rail transit undermines bus service. O’Toole
suggests that funding should be focused on “transit dependent
people” and not directed to suburban, exurban or rural service.
The posits a choice between “high cost rail or flexible
bus systems.” Of course, this is a false choice and limiting
public transportation only to inner cities is a dangerous prescription
that would result in overwhelming congestion, declining quality
of life, and worsening isolation for many citizens. As noted above,
there is no evidence to suggest that rail investment is negatively
affecting bus service as growth in bus ridership, investment,
and new system starts continues.
In fact, citizens want transportation options and demand a comprehensive
solution that includes multiple choices and enhanced mobility.
In a recent survey, two-thirds of Americans cited improving public
transportation as vital to solving congestion. Exit polls and
analysis of election results from public transportation ballot
measures have demonstrated that support for rail and other transit
investments is broad and not limited to downtown areas. Another
national poll found an astonishing 81% of those surveyed believe
that public transportation strengthens the economy, reduces congestion
and improves the environment.
Limiting public transportation investments and options threatens
to undermine regional economic competitiveness and ignores population
and demographic trends. On the economic front, transit access
increases property values and family incomes. A study in Dallas
found that property values with transit access grew at nearly
a 2-to-1 rate compared to properties without access. Companies
understand the importance of a well-connected transportation system.
Internet giant Google has made public transportation access part
of its site selection criteria. And, our aging population (by
2025 one-fifth of the US population will be over 65) will require
an interconnected public transportation to maintain health and
mobility.
Back to Top
For more information and tips, check
out CFTE's Responding to Critics
Toolkit.
