A BLUEPRINT FOR COUNTERING THE CLAIMS OF TRANSIT CRITICS

For more than three decades opponents to mass transit have banged
on the table with irrelevant or half-true claims, “facts” and figures.

By Sam Zimmerman

There is an old proverb that says, “If the law is on your side, pound on the law. If the facts are on your side, pound on the facts. If neither is on your side, pound on the table.”

In countless forums, articles and the popular press, critics of transit have repeatedly used a few half-truths and irrelevant arguments to justify a completely erroneous position.

Unfortunately, in many local debates, transit and transportation planners have become mired in this specious reasoning and off-repeated litany of unreliable statistics.

It’s time to put the critics and the facts in perspective. What follows is a debunking of those critics’ claims. Transit and transportation officials can use this as a guide, structure and primer to counter fallacious arguments about transit.

Tired arguments

Falsehood #1: New rail transit lines should not be built because existing transit lines cost more than initially projected and have not met ridership forecasts.

Reality: This commonly used argument against rail transit stems from a study completed in the late 1980s. Commissioned by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), the study was designed solely to compare cost and ridership estimates with actual performance to improve forecasting methods, transit planning and decision-making. That’s it. That was the study’s entire purpose. Period. End of story.

The study’s title was Urban Rail Projects: Forecast Versus Actual Ridership and Costs. Dr. Don Pickrell of the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Volpe National Trans-portation System Center (VNTSC) conducted the study because the FTA, Congress and the transit community were (and continue to be) concerned about the accuracy of transit ridership figures and cost estimates produced during the planning process and used in investment decision making. Although the study was never intended as a critique of rail transit or as a comprehensive measurement of rail transit’s full range of costs and benefits, rail critics regularly cite this study as proof that rail transit “can never be cost-effective.”

The facts are that the study was neither designed nor conducted to measure rail transit’s intrinsic net value, or to comprehensively compare its costs and benefits for particular projects or in general. If that were the case, FTA and the VNTSC would have chosen a significantly different approach, one that would more broadly measure benefits, costs and impacts. To combat the misuse of the study, simply grab the study from the critic’s hands and read the introduction detailing its purpose.

Measuring the effectiveness of mass transit should not be only a matter of the accuracy of cost and ridership estimates, though they are clearly important in decision making. Critics fail to recognize that even if ridership and cost forecasts are not achieved, a particular investment can still have a net benefit. Once a project is built and begins to operate, citizens and government officials generally care little about the accuracy of forecasts if the project proves successful and beneficial to the community. This isn’t to say that providing the most accurate information possible to decision makers in a democracy before they make a decision isn’t important—it is. What it says is that once decisions are made, evaluate the success of what they produce in a holistic, objective way, not just based on forecast accuracy. What’s more, the research and technical assistance and oversight programs into improved planning methods— undertaken by the FTA and the rest of the USDOT in the wake of the VNTSC study—have taken root. Invariably, forecasts made in the 1990s for new systems and rail lines that have recently opened are much closer than the ones reported on in the VNTSC report. In some cases (e.g., Dallas and St. Louis LRTs), actual ridership has exceeded planning expectations, and costs have been equal to or below planning estimates.

Falsehood #2: Rail transit systems constructed in the last 30 years have had little or no effect on reducing congestion.

Reality: The critics gleefully broadcast that mass transit systems do not eliminate or significantly reduce highway congestion, even though survey after survey has shown that a significant proportion of riders on new rail lines are former drivers.

Still, why does congestion continue to grow even when high-quality, high-performance transit systems are in place?

First, in the short run, vacated road capacity quickly fills up with new travel, “induced” in a variety of ways. Time constraints are lifted, and people can leave for work when they want to, rather than early or late to avoid congestion. People can also take trips to farther, potentially more desirable destinations. Drivers take advantage of less congestion to frequent commercial establishments that are further away in terms of distance but may have lower prices, more variety, or both.

In the long run, there are even more significant demographic factors in play. Congestion grows because population and employment—and hence overall travel demand—continue to increase. There are also phenomena such as young couples seeking affordable housing further away from where they work, and businesses seeking more space at lower unit costs.

Long-term reductions in congestion therefore require more than just investments in an improved transit system, or in more highway capacity.

Some might argue that real long-term congestion reduction may require that motorists pay the full social cost of the roads they use when they use them. In Singapore, for example, rail transit investments have been matched with highway congestion pricing. The result: a significant reduction in congestion. One of the ways that unpopular increases in highway use charges may be made palatable to drivers in the first place is to provide a high-quality, well-priced alternative— namely rapid transit, built with the funds so collected.

Irrespective of the popularity of charging the full social cost of driving to motorists, critics never seem to understand that transit produces far more benefits than just congestion reduction. The imperative for transit investments in general, and for rapid transit investments in particular, is to provide a high-quality travel alternative for everyone - - car owner or not.

For those without a car, transit is a lifeline. Providing people with a transportation choice brings mobility to millions of people who couldn’t previously join the work force or be active participants in society. Their participation not only expands the quality of life—theirs and ours—but fuels the economy as well. And that value is virtually impossible to quantify.

The biggest economic benefit that transit provides, certainly the easiest to measure, is commercial development. Rail transit has a proven track record of adding value to real estate near stations, and inducing desirable land-use changes. A recent study in Northern Virginia, for example, estimated that 18 Metrorail stations generated more than $700 million in increased income, sales and real estate transfer tax revenue for the Virginia Commonwealth between 1978 and 1994. While many of these land-use effects are re-distributive, it is nonetheless clear that inducing residents and employers to locate in an already urbanized core (rather than at the urban fringe) generates clear societal value and cost savings. Within that core, new developments can utilize existing infrastructure, not to mention underused or abandoned land. Also, because of the density and pedestrian-friendly nature of that core, there is a greater probability that transit and walking will meet the transportation needs of the area’s residents and workers for all trip purposes, not just work. And when they’re walking, they’re not driving.

So, while it is inappropriate to suggest that rail transit investment is always economically justifiable, it is equally incorrect to assert that it is never justified based on the long-term observation of only one of its myriad beneficial effects. Before the public invests its money, the benefits, costs and impacts should be objectively and comprehensively evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Then, let the true facts drive decision making, not narrowly defined arguments reflecting an ongoing bias.

Falsehood #3: Transit carries less than 3 percent of all trips, but it inequitably receives more than 20 percent of all public spending on surface transportation.

Reality: By that reasoning, we should criticize the elderly for receiving a disproportionate share of Social Security funds. The fact is, public monies should go where the needs are, and where they can have the most benefit. Yes, transit carries a relatively small percentage of all trips. And yes, it receives considerable funding. Does it receive an inequitable portion of funding? No. Here’s where the critics’ argument falls apart.

It is safe to say that central business districts (CBDs) around the country are important. Think about New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, Dallas, Houston, San Francisco, Boston, San Diego, Seattle, Portland, Miami, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Washington—the list goes on and on. Every one of those major cities are centers of finance, communications, government, culture, entertainment, commerce—the elements that make our urban regions and our entire nation vital— would grind to a halt without mass transit.

Some critics dismiss CBDs as “irrelevant” and “anachronistic.” Manhattan? Chicago’s Loop? Down-town San Francisco? Unimportant? All of these cities have CBDs that are transit dependent. For example, even in supposedly auto-dominated Los Angeles and Houston, transit carries more than 30 percent of all peak work trips to huge downtowns. The CBDs of our largest cities are critical to the future health of our economy, and millions of Americans depend on mass transit to sustain that health. These huge conglomerations are the heart and soul of their respective metropolitan regions and provide inestimable value to our nation. How can these critics claim that the mode that created them and keeps them vital is inequitably funded?

For the sake of argument, let’s entertain the idea that there’s a better way to transport the tens of millions of workers into our nation’s downtowns. Let’s use the critics’ favorite choice—the automobile.
In almost every case, bringing millions of automobiles into America’s urban cores costs more than mass transit. It is inane to even consider highway construction as a feasible solution; most CBDs and central cities are already so dense that there simply isn’t room to construct additional highways or expand existing ones. Even if that could be done—at an astronomical financial, social and environmental cost— where would potential drivers put their cars once they got downtown? The current average market rate to build a parking space in most big CBD garages stands at well over $12,500 per space (net of land). And imagine how that will skyrocket with greater demand for a limited amount of land. But that’s just one cost.

The carrying charges for this capital expense (not to mention the operating and maintenance costs per space for lighting, insurance, security, etc.) mean that CBD garage spaces can cost upward of $5 per working day. If the space is in an underground garage, make that daily cost $10 per day or more. Of course that does not include the cost of highway construction, car purchases, gasoline, car insurance, more air pollution, greater numbers of accidents and so on. Transit looks like a bargain by comparison, no matter how small the overall regional market share may appear. Again, however, critics use one isolated figure to describe an entire universe.

Although the percentage of transit trips may be small, transit provides mobility for tens of millions of people who have no access to cars. And aside from empowering people and keeping CBDs viable, transit is efficient. Particularly in and around CBDs, the alternatives to transit are so much more expensive that they are not even close to financially feasible. It is within this context that infrastructure fund allocations should be made. And those allocations should reflect need, cost and benefit on a case-by-case basis; they should not be arbitrarily linked to a misapplied national or even regional demand or efficiency measure.

Falsehood #4: Transit loses “vast sums of money” while highways “pay for themselves.” Why throw good money after bad by expanding transit?

Reality: Okay, claiming that highways “pay for themselves” is like some dilettante declaring that he is self-sufficient— if you don’t count the trust fund that pays all of his living expenses. The reality here is that highways do not pay for themselves, by any accounting standards. In fact, according to statistics published by the Federal Highway Administration (Highway Statistics, 1999), highway user revenues (e.g., gas taxes, vehicle registration fees, etc.) pay only about 70 percent of the direct costs of building, operating and maintaining highways in the United States. The rest is paid from the same general kind of tax revenues that pay transit subsidies.

And these figures do not include the indirect costs of highway use. Even by the most conservative estimates, these indirect costs—pollution, uninsured accidents, parking subsidies—are three times larger than the direct costs (approximately $117 billion per year, 1998). Ironically, the direct public cost of providing highway transportation that is not covered by auto-user fees is very close to the cost of building, operating and maintaining local roads, most of the mileage of which are on rural “farm-to-market” roads. Yet transportation economists and politicians seem to ignore this subsidy. Why?

First, because these direct road subsidies translate into indirect subsidies of food prices. Second, these road subsidies furnish basic access and mobility for rural America. Accordingly, they are not expected to “pay for themselves.” Why then should transit, performing essentially the same basic access and mobility function for tens of millions of urban families, be expected to?

It is simply not logical to support a subsidy for the auto/highway lifeline for rural Americans but not the equivalent transit safety net for urban areas. In searching for an equitable balance, we must consider the indirect cost of highways, and recognize that the myth that highways “pay for themselves” is clearly just that, a myth.

Falsehood #5: Job growth only exists in the suburbs. Transit is irrelevant because it is only a competitive transportation option for traditional downtowns that are dying.

Reality: This is probably the most incorrect argument in the repertoire of transit’s critics. Essentially, what this says is that the great economic center cities of America are all dead or dying.

Therefore, the argument goes, we should not invest additional funds in the transit systems that nourish them.

What the critics fail to acknowledge is that all of our major cities have more than 100,000 jobs in their CBDs, by far the largest concentrations of activity in their respective regions and the nation! In New York City, Chicago and Washington, the numbers are more like 2,000,000, 600,000, and 500,000 jobs, respectively. How many parking spaces would that translate into if everyone used a car to get to work?
And the numbers are rising. The CBDs of this nation are the heart and soul of America. CBDs are the capitals of government, business, commerce, culture, education and entertainment. They work efficiently and prosper thanks in part to transit. They all have transit-mode shares in excess of 25 percent for work trips. Without transit, all of these cities would be crippled economically. And if anything appears to be a trend in terms of this nation’s central cities, it’s that people are returning to central cities to live, work and play.

Through careful, strategic development, cities as diverse as Cincinnati, Houston, Atlanta, Denver, Chicago, Seattle and Baltimore are enjoying downtown renaissances with thousands of homes as well as offices being rehabilitated or built from scratch; their stories are described in full in a myriad of magazines.

In New York City and Chicago, the renaissance is easily documented and breathtaking. Baltimore’s Camden Yards baseball stadium leads the national trend of creating new sports and entertainment venues in CBDs because of their location and transportation advantages (great transit access, no need for costly dedicated parking). Putting these high-visibility attractions in a central, easily reached location keeps people interested, draws money to the CBD and helps metropolitan regions define a sense of place for themselves.

Every region has huge shopping malls and fancy suburban residential areas; but not every one has an MTA LRT and commuter rail served Camden Yard, an MCI Center on top of five WMATA Metrorail lines, a Rock and Roll Hall of Fame near three GCRTA rail transit lines, or an entertainment district like Denver’s LoDo on top of RTD’s beautiful and busy transit/pedestrian mall.

Throughout the country, downtowns are once again being seen as great opportunities for development of all kinds, from traditional office buildings to shopping, restaurants, theaters and residences. Given their inherent infrastructure advantages and ready access to entire regions, big city downtowns are enhancing their already considerable status as the vital centers of this country—and transit is the key transportation ingredient in that rebirth.

The last word
When critics trot out these tired half-stories and half-truths, don’t let the critics take center stage unchallenged. Use the information above as counterpoints, because the stakes are high. The whole truth about transit—its pluses as well as its minuses—should be used in debates about it at all levels of government.

Sam Zimmerman is Principal, Transportation Planning, with the New York-based firm DMJM+ HARRIS.