|
|
An estimated 14 million Americans ride public transportation each weekday and an additional 25 million use it on a less frequent but regular basis.
>> View & Search Factoids!
|
|
|
Center for Transportation Excellence
1030 15th Street NW
Suite 750 West
Washington, DC 20005
Tel: (202) 349-1037
Fax: (202) 318-1429
info@cfte.org
www.cfte.org
|
|
|
What the Critics Are Saying
Critics of public transportation
have varied reasons for opposing transit projects. Some opponents
may be influenced by personal beliefs. Others have a political
agenda. Still others oppose public transportation because of
the potential harm to the industry they represent. All critics
cite many of the same reasons why the public should not support
transit. When the numbers are not in their favor, as is often
the case, many resort to arguments that feed on public sentiment,
but are ill founded nonetheless. Here’s what they always say:
RIDERSHIP
FUNDING
URBAN
LIFESTYLE
MISCELLANEOUS
Transit
ridership forecasts for proposed rail projects are exaggerated.
- Since 1990 light rail ridership
has nearly doubled from 175 million trips to 336 million in
2001. In fact, 11 out of 12 new rail systems built after 1980
in the
U.S.
have added new lines since their opening due to increased demand.
- Early new light rail project
ridership estimates were greatly exaggerated during the early
and mid 1980s, as highlighted in the Urban Mass Transit Administration-financed
report, Urban Rail Transit Projects: Forecast Versus Actual
Ridership and Costs (1989). This is to be expected when
there is little upon which to base estimates. New regulations
and oversight by the Federal Transit Administration, and experiential
data has solved this problem, and in most cases, have caused
underestimates of ridership levels. For example, Baltimore’s
light rail has seen their ridership increase seven-fold since
1992.
-
When planned and implemented
correctly, projections and estimates are very accurate. For
example:
Salt Lake City's
light rail system, TRAX, projected initial weekday ridership
of 14,000. Actual ridership for first four months was 19,000
per weekday. Saturday ridership was even higher at 25,000.
TRAX also came in a year ahead of schedule and $23 million
under budget.
When
Portland's
MAX system opened in 1998, critics argued the 2005 ridership projections
were overly optimistic. MAX surpassed it's 2005 projections by
its second anniversary, carrying 71,000 riders per day.
Sacramento's
system came in on budget and three months early.
St. Louis'
system came in on budget and four months early.
Only 2% of trips are on transit.
- This statistic is not an
accurate method of determining the success of light rail. It
is not a measure of transit or commute trips. Rather, this
figure accounts for all trips in the region, 24 hours a day,
including freight trips.
- A more accurate assessment
can be made by looking at the percentage of “transit-competitive”
trips, those trips that are competitive to the automobile, in
both time and convenience. Transit-competitive trips are generally
between 22-40% in favor of transit. In areas that are not served
by transit, the only option is to drive, which, in part explains
the high percentage of commutes by automobile.
- The
U.S.
has over 8.2 million lane miles of roads. Only 4.3% of those
roads are served by transit. Additionally, transit buses or
parallel passenger rail lines run on only 168,603 miles.
Light rail cannot displace the same or a greater
number of automobile passengers.
Transit funding would be better spent on building
highways.
-
Studies
have shown repeatedly that adding lane miles to roads does not
significantly relieve congestion. New roadways quickly fill
to capacity and show little effect on surrounding arteries.
A study by Xeuhao Chu, [iii] a professor at UC Berkeley, states that increasing
roadway miles by one percent “would reduce (congestion) by one-eleventh
of a percent on freeways.” Further, studies show that the investment
of time lost in traffic due to the construction and expansion
of roads does not have a significant return. [iv]
Bus is the cheapest means of public transportation.
In Portland,
operating costs per boarding are $1.40 on light rail and $1.67
on buses.
In Los Angeles, operating costs per passenger
mile are 30˘ on light rail, 57˘ on buses.
- About 80% of the cost operating
any transit system is labor. Buses produce 100,000 passenger
miles for every employee annually. Compare this to 206,329
miles per employee for light rail, 294,008 for subway rail,
and 399,778 for commuter rail. It should be noted that when
the goal is a mix of transportation modes to meet all needs,
buses provide needed routing flexibility.
- To be fair, it should be
noted that capital costs are significantly higher for
light rail than for buses. Capital costs for an initial bus
system range from $1-8 million per mile compared to light rail
at $10-30 million per mile. [vi] Of additional note, buses do not offer
the same benefits of light rail in terms of increased economic
development, reduced air pollution, and higher passenger attraction.
Transportation funding should be spent proportionally
based on mode.
-
Approximately
40 million Americans, nearly 20% of the population, use transit
on a regular basis. [vii] On the federal level, transit receives approximately
20% of available transportation funds.
-
Since
the completion of the Interstate highway system and passage
of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991,
there has been a significant shift in investment priorities.
The past forty years has seen a massive investment in road infrastructure,
but now the focus is on transit infrastructure and highway maintenance.
If market demand is any indicator
of where investment should be made, one need only look at the
demand for federal New Starts transit funding. By some estimates,
based on available federal funds, there is a 20 year backlog
of requests for transit projects. In addition, transit investment
leads to transit growth. When transit trips are competitive
with the automobile, there is a large percentage of people who
will choose transit.
-
A recent
survey indicates that 66% of Americans see improving public
transportation as the solution to congestion. [viii]
Transit works only in high-density areas.
-
Defined
broadly, transit can serve as the life-blood of rural communities.
For example:
Van pools
Rural bus service
Commuter Rail
- Density is becoming less and less important as park-and-ride
facilities become more integrated with new and existing systems. Transit can also work as the
backbone of a system that connects two suburban hubs of activity.
An example would be traveling to a rail station by way of bus
or driving to a park-and-ride lot, and upon arriving to the
station nearest to ones destination, taking a shuttle, cab or
bus.
- Critics rarely distinguish between vehicular density and population
density. The goal of transit is to reduce vehicular densities
on the road. See displacement argument.
- This is only one way to look
at the fact that transportation and development go hand in hand.
The opposite is also true. Transit creates development. In
an earlier
America
,
towns developed at the crossroads of most road and rail hubs.
Due to the permanent nature of rail, such transit lines are
likely to cause development.
- It should be noted that critics
rarely site what are acceptable density and ridership thresholds
for a successful light rail project. Indeed, Peter Gordon,
a professor from USC and longtime critic of Light Rail, is quoted
as saying, “No amount of ridership
would make [Light Rail] successful."
Transit funding is highly subsidized
- All transportation is subsidized.
“Funding” for roads subsidizes the ability to conveniently drive
an automobile, for which roughly 80% of all federal funding
goes towards. Only 20% of federal funding gets allocated towards
transit. According to the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA)
the annual cost for automobile users ranges from $2.1 trillion
to $2.9 trillion. User fees cover between $1.7 trillion and
$1.9 trillion. This means highways receive an annual subsidy
of somewhere between $439 billion and $1 trillion. According
to APTA, taxpayers contributed roughly $17 billion annually
(2000$) to transit. [ix]
Transit is for wealthy downtown commuters.
- Initial start-ups for light
rail generally focus on the downtown corridors primarily because
the downtown is where there is the greatest demand. As service
expands, suburb-to-suburb service emerges.
- In actuality, according to
the American Public Transportation Association, 83% of people
who take transit make less than $50,000 annually [x]
Transit ridership has decreased.
- Actual ridership numbers
collected from transit agencies nationwide by the American Public
Transportation Association indicate that transit ridership nearly
doubled from 1990 to 2000.
- Indeed transit’s share of trips declined from the end World War II, when increased
car ownership and new zoning regulations caused a shift in transit
habits. However, since 1991, transit has hit a twenty year
high and is on the rise. For five straight years now, transit
ridership nationally has grown faster than highway use. Over
the past six years, trips made on public transportation in the
U.S.
went up 21%, while highway use increased only 12% [xi]
- The recent increase in ridership
is remarkable since 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. [xii]
Americans love their cars.
- Americans love cars as a
symbol of freedom and prosperity. As our landscape and our
economy changes so do these tokens. Cars no longer set us free
if they force us to sit still in traffic and cut us off from
the people and places we’re going to see. This is increasingly
the case in neighborhoods surrounding many cities, not just
during rush hours, but during off-peak hours as well.
- This is an evasive argument,
and one that gets used quite often. What should be acknowledged
is that light rail and transit is an effective way to deal with
rush hour travel demand.
Transit agencies should be privatized and operate
on free market competition.
- This would be great, if there
were a free market left in the transportation sector. The fact
is, the free market didn’t create the decline in transit ridership
or the over-dependence on the automobile. Policies and restrictions
such as the massive investment in the Interstate Highway System
and the mortgage interest deduction on single family homes are
in part to blame. Any free market economist will tell you,
a free market demands a level playing field. To achieve it, all subsidies (highways, autos, etc.) would need to be
relinquished.
- In actuality, early transit
systems were private, and turned a profit. It wasn’t until
the government and auto-maker lobby interests intervened. [xiii]
Portland, OR Transit-Oriented Development design
is heavily subsidized and is a failure.
- Critics like referring to
Portland’s
TOD Property Tax Exemption Ordinance as a subsidy for TOD.
Well, it is. The ordinance gives developers a 10 year tax break
for building high density housing and mixed use projects near
light rail stops. While it may seem that Portland is just giving
away money, the fact is that the city will benefit two-fold:
After 10 years, the increase in property values, and the corresponding
property taxes will offset the abatement in less than 10 additional
years, and the transit investment will be protected with the
increase in potential riders living and working in close proximity.
- This argument is short-term
thinking, when actually, TOD is a long-term benefit.
- In January 1999, the National
Home Builders selected one of Portland’s TODs, "Orenco
Station" out of nearly 1,000 entries for their "Master
Planned Community of the Year" gold award. In 1998,
it won the Governor's Livability Award. [xiv]
Transit-Oriented Developments are not conducive
to retail establishments.
- On the contrary, developers
view train stations as prime retail and residential locations.
Their permanence and proximity to convenient transportation
make the decision to develop within walking distance a no-brainer.
In Washington
DC,
Virginia,
St. Louis,
San Francisco
and Dallas,
rail projects have consistently offered a dollar-for-dollar
return on transit investment in the form of residential and
retail development.
- The
value per square foot of commercial space near Metrorail stations
in Northern Virginia
has jumped more than 600 percent since the first station opened
in 1977. [xv]
- In Atlanta,
$70 billion in apartments, offices and other developments have
been built near the rapid transit rail lines. Around Washington
D.C.
40% of new building space in the 1980s, worth $3 billion, was
built within walking distance of a Metro stop. [xvi]
The
private automobile is safer than public transportation
-
According to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, in 2001,
the U.S. witnessed 42,196 automobile related fatalities, compared
to 267 public transportation fatalities.[xvii]
- Even if you examine fatalities on a per 100 million Passenger-Mile
basis, public transportation is still safer. Motor vehicles account
for 0.93 fatalities per 100 million Passenger-Miles; Rail Rapid
Transit (Metro) has a 0.55 fatality rate; Commuter Rail has a
0.05 fatality rate; Bus has a 0.10 fatality rate; and Light Rail
has a 0.00 fatality rate.[xviii]
- Disparities in reporting systems for accidents also contribute
to flaws in these numbers. For example, some states do not report
accidents if the cost in damages is less than $200. Another example
is that most fatalities from LRT/automobile collisions are double-counted
as both LRT and highway fatalities.
[vi]
International Energy Agency, Bus Systems For The
Future, 2001.
[xv] Virginia Transit Online, Transit Fosters Business Development
in the Commonwealth
|
|
|
