Responses to Recent Reports
In addition to helping local groups craft their own
responses to critics, the Center has taken the initiative to respond
to national reports that inaccurately represent the impact of transit
on the communities for which it serves.
February 2006
Responding to O'Toole's "A Desire Named Streetcar"
Randal O’Toole’s latest report, "A Desire
Named Streetcar," 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.
• Victoria
Transport Policy Institute's "Responses to 'Desire Named Streetcar'"
by Todd Litman
• ·Ten Ways
He Gets It Wrong
O'Toole on NPR
On January 28, NPR's Weekend Edition featured an interview with
O'Toole. In response to O'Toole's claims, NPR received numerous
letters from listeners. NPR later broadcast repsonses from American
Public Transportation Association President Bill Millar and VTPI's
Todd Litman:
"In the last three years citizens approved 75%
of transit measures on ballots nationwide, voting to tax themselves
to invest in public transportation services. Citizens are saying
that they want a transportation system that gives people travel
options, including buses, light rail and subways."
— Bill Millar, President, APTA
"Randall O’Toole’s report "A
Desire Named Streetcar" assumes that the future consists of
ever-increasing automobile travel and suburban sprawl, based on
extrapolation of past trends. It ignores demographic and market
shifts that are increasing demand for high-quality transit service
and more transit-oriented community development. We can all benefit
from more balanced transportation investments that reduce automobile
dependency."
— Todd Litman, Victoria Transport Policy Institute
April 20, 2005
Author and public policy analyst Otis White offers
his rebuttal of the "Lexus" argument that critics of public
transportation often use. White points out that the critics conveniently
omit external costs not borne by the driver of the hypothetical
"Lexus":
OK, Then, How About a Yugo for Everybody?
Doing the Math on Public Transit
Otis White
You've probably heard someone say, in a debate over rail transit,
that these systems are so expensive and poorly patronized, it'd
be cheaper to give every passenger a free car instead. Humorist
P.J. O'Rourke made that claim recently in a Wall Street Journal
column. O'Rourke's target: Minneapolis' new $700 million light-rail
line, which he said was so extravagant, the city "could have
leased a BMW X-5 SUV for [every] commuter at about the same price."
But is that right? One reader ran the numbers.
Saying that he recognized O'Rourke was trying to be
funny, Janek Kozlowski suggested taking O'Rourke's offer at face
value. Would taxpayers have been better served by giving every one
of Minneapolis' 15,500 transit riders a BMW SUV? Well, said Kozlowski,
leases for that many BMWs would cost $44 million a year, with leasers
paying another $2,800 a year in gas, maintenance and so on. But,
of course, that gets you only a car in the driveway.
To get to work, Kozlowski said, the displaced commuters
would have to drive on a highway. Highways cost about $20.6 million
per mile to build, with interchanges averaging $100 million apiece.
To replace the Minneapolis rail line, then, figure 12 miles of new
freeway and two interchanges, which comes out to $440 million, not
including annual maintenance, he said. But that's not all.
The commuters need a place to park their Bimmers when
they get to work. If all 15,500 could park on cheap surface lots,
the lots would cost someone (businesses, the city) another $31 million
to build. That's bad, but worse is the impact on the city treasury,
since parking lots generate a fraction of the tax revenues of a
commercial building ($3 a year per square foot vs., conservatively,
$50 for office space). Results of turning over nearly 2 million
square feet of downtown land to surface parking: The city would
lose $91 million a year in revenues.
So how do the two options compare when all the costs
are taken into consideration? Assume that the BMWs, freeway and
parking lots would last 50 years each (as rail lines do, on average).
Assume, too, that you could amortize their capital costs over that
period. Then add in the operating costs for the BMWs and maintenance
for the freeway and parking lots (and keep in mind that fares provide
nearly $10 million of the $13 million it costs to run Minneapolis'
rail line each year). Finally figure everything at present-day costs
(not including inflation).
Ka-ching: Transit costs taxpayers a little more than
$17 million a year. And what about the Bimmers, highway and parking
lots? "Taxpayers would have to dish out $166 million per year,"
Kozlowski concluded.
Originally published in Governing Magazine, April
8, 2005
Reprinted with permission
May 13, 2004
In a recent “Innovation Brief” titled
“Rating and Evaluating ‘New Starts’”, C.
Kenneth Orski offers his interpretation of a number of concerns
raised by House Transportation Appropriations subcommittee members
and others about the New Starts evaluation process, particularly
as it relates to selection criteria and cost-effectiveness of the
projects that local communities decide will best meet their transportation
needs. In addition to overstating the problem, the described solution
– more federal government regulation – seems outdated
at best and is completely inconsistent with the bipartisan philosophy
of local control that serves as the foundation of our Nation’s
transportation laws.
CFTE
Analysis of Kenneth Orski's 'Rating and Evaluating New Starts'
(PDF)
CFTE
Press Release (PDF)
View Kenneth Orski's 'Rating
and Evaluating "New Starts"' (PDF)
March 20, 2004
Wendell Cox and Randall O'Toole recently produced
a report titled "The Contribution of Highways and Transit to
Congestion Relief: A Realistic View”, which questions the
validity of the Texas Transportation Institute’s 2003 Annual
Urban Mobility Study. It appears that the authors have made analytical
errors regarding demographics and agency spending for public transportation.
Furthermore, they use those conclusions to make faulty policy recommendations
in terms of highway expansion and privatization.
CFTE
Response to Wendell Cox (PDF)
View Cox and O'Toole's "The
Contribution of Highways and Transit to Congestion Relief: A Realistic
View" (PDF)
Back to Responding To Critics
|
