Myth 8: Transit subsidies exceed automobile subsidies or free market competition and privately operated transit is better

The irony of this argument is that the highway advocates, having driven privately owned, tax paying rail transit out of business with massive subsidies to highway construction, now complain that transit needs subsidies to compete. Free market competition for transportation is a good idea in theory, but in order for it to work in practice, several things would have to happen.

First, transit would have to be compensated retroactively for the unfair advantage that highways have enjoyed since the 1920s that destroyed privately owned transit in the first place. Second, a free market demands a level playing field. In the world of transportation, the field could hardly be more uneven. Some local transit critics have claimed that transit has cannibalized highway funding and now accounts for the majority of federal transportation spending. That could not be further from the truth. The table below shows federal transportation expenditures by mode. By far the greatest amount goes to air travel, but you don’t hear the opponents of transit spending arguing against federal spending on air travel. Spending on highways in 2006 was 23 times greater than spending on transit. Clearly, subsidies for roads far outweigh those for transit.
If we really want transit and cars compete fairly, each should have the same subsidy, or no subsidy at all. In the world as it is, with automobiles receiving heavy subsidies in a myriad of ways, transit, to compete, will have to be subsidized as well.

And that's it! We're done (for now).

Heroically yours,

Mobility Mike and Commuter Carly

Check the facts:
U. S. Department of Transportation, Research and Innovative Technology Administration, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Government Transportation Financial Statistics 2008, available at http://www.bts.gov/publications/government_transportation_financial_statistics/
Weyrich and Lind, Twelve Anti-Transit Myths: A Conservative Critique The Free Congress Foundation, 2001

Myth 7: Rail transit does not spur economic development

This claim is really ironic, since critics of light rail are always touting the benefits of buses, which have no impact whatsoever on development. A rail line is a fixed, high-value asset. High-value in particular because businesses around stations know they can count on the increased pedestrian activity around the stations for retail, and for easy, reliable access for employees. A developer can invest in a new office building near a rail transit line knowing that twenty years from now, the rail line will still be there providing transit service.

In city after city, we have seen this effect. Charlotte experienced $1.87 billion in investment and development along their light rail corridor, which opened in November 2007. In Phoenix, $5.9 billion in private development and $1.5 billion in (non-rail) public development has been generated along the METRO line since 2001. Light rail does stimulate economic development, and as our economy continues to struggle, we could use this boost now more than ever.

Heroically yours,

Mobility Mike and Commuter Carly

Check the facts:
Cambridge Systematics, “Economic Impact of HART: Existing and Future Expansions,” Final Report, July 2010
Weyrich and Lind, Twelve Anti-Transit Myths: A Conservative Critique The Free Congress Foundation, 2001

Myth 6: Rail transit can only serve city centers, but most new jobs are in the suburbs

Rail can and does serve suburbs effectively. This is possible because while some job growth is occurring in the suburbs, it’s not spread out evenly across the map. Instead, this suburban growth is concentrated in specific areas in corridors. In Hillsborough, for example, most growth is along Bruce B. Downs in New Tampa or along SR 60 in Brandon (which is why lines are planned for both of these areas). These high growth corridors can be served effectively by rail.

Portland, Oregon, offers an example. Instead of building a planned freeway to serve the growth in the suburban corridor to the west of the city, it built Westside MAX, an extension of the Light Rail System. Passenger Transport reported on September 25, 2000, Westside MAX's two-year anniversary, that daily ridership on Westside MAX exceeded the 25,200 rides estimated for 2005 after only 17 months of operation and reached 28,200 weekday rides a few months later.

A single Light Rail line can only serve a limited area, but a complete system like the one planned for Hillsborough County that connects major residential areas, including the suburbs, to major employment centers can and will work effectively.

Check the facts:
Weyrich and Lind, Twelve Anti-Transit Myths: A Conservative Critique The Free Congress Foundation, 2001

So far so good, two more to go!

Heroically yours,

Mobility Mike and Commuter Carly

Myth 5: Light rail has been a failure everywhere. The estimated costs always prove too low, and the ridership projections are always too high

When communities throughout the country started re-investing in light rail in the 1980’s, some ridership and cost projections were badly off, because planners had no recent experience on which to base these projections. With time and experience, estimates for light rail ridership and costs have gotten more accurate, with ridership often underestimated, and costs and sometimes construction time overestimated. Light rail critics ignore the progress that has been made and continue citing outdated numbers. So does light rail fail “everywhere?” Let’s look at some examples (data from Weyrich and Lind, 2001 unless otherwise cited):

• In Phoenix, AZ, when their light rail opened in 2001, it was projected to attract 26,000 riders per day, but the number was closer to 33,000 per day (Litman, 2010).
• Salt Lake City's TRAX light rail system began service December 4, 1999 – a year ahead of schedule and under budget. Projected weekday ridership was 14,000 people. Actual weekday ridership early in 2000 ranged from 18,956 to 19,742. Saturday ridership was even higher, reaching 25,621 four months after opening.
• In Denver, their central corridor, which opened in 1994, was above expected ridership projections. When they extended the original light rail line another 8.7 miles it exceeded ridership expectations by almost 30 percent in the first week.
• In the first two years after Portland, Oregon's Westside MAX Light Rail line opened in 1998, average daily ridership was above 71,000, a level not expected until 2005. Prior to the line’s opening, the forecasts for 2005 were criticized as too optimistic.
• In St. Louis, 17,000 daily riders were projected by the end of the first year. One year later, weekday ridership was 44,414 and average Saturday and Sunday ridership was over 50,500. Both the media and some public officials had criticized the initial projections as being “ludicrously high.”
• The first 11 miles of Dallas's 20-light rail system opened on time and within budget. Initial ridership was projected at 15,000; actual ridership in the first month averaged more than 18,000. In 2001, DART was averaging weekday ridership of 42,000.
• The Charlotte LYNX system, which opened in November of 2007, was projected to carry 9,100 riders per day. Actual daily ridership less than two years later was 14,500 (Cambridge Systematics, 2010).

So, light rail failing everywhere? Not by a long shot. Recent systems have been very successful, blowing ridership projections out of the water.

Check the facts:
Cambridge Systematics, “Economic Impact of HART: Existing and Future Expansions,” Final Report, July 2010
Litman, T., Evaluating rail transit criticism, Victoria Transport Policy Institute, 2010
Weyrich and Lind, Twelve Anti-Transit Myths: A Conservative Critique The Free Congress Foundation, 2001

Heroically yours,

Mobility Mike and Commuter Carly

Myth 4: Rail transit requires excessive land use densities

This myth is used to scare residents in low density areas into believing that rail is doomed to fail… or that it’s part of a conspiracy to turn their once-beloved neighborhood into the next Manhattan. Rail can connect major activity centers like business districts, airports, campuses, shopping malls, and suburban residential areas. Light rail can function efficiently with densities as low as 25 residents (about 10 housing units) per acre, which can be achieved with a combination of single-family and mid-rise multi-family housing (Pushkarev and Zupan 1997). We have seen this in the success of light rail systems in communities with densities similar to – or lower than – our own. The table below lists the densities of other cities compared to the City of Tampa’s density now, and the projected density for 2035. If the densities here are already comparable to those in other communities with rail, clearly “excessive” densities are not required for success.
Let’s make one more point about density. For those who value their suburban or rural community, the best choice you can make to preserve that community is to support light rail. Rail concentrates growth in the urban center, preventing further growth in rural areas and increased density in suburban areas.

Check the facts:
Hillsborough County MPO, http://www.mpo2035.org/faqs.html
Pushkarev and Zupan, Public Transportation & Land Use Policy, A Regional Planning Association Book, Indiana University Press, 1997

Heroically yours,

Mobility Mike and Commuter Carly

Myth 3: Where transit is needed, buses are better than rail because buses are flexible and cost less

For capital costs, this could be true. For example, in HART’s system, 69% of capital expenditures from 2011-2040 will go to light rail, and only 5% will go to buses. Of course, this completely ignores the cost of building and maintaining the roads that buses travel (roads that are also paid for with tax dollars, the money comes from different pockets, but the same pants). However, once light rail is up and running, the track and the train cars are more durable and less expensive to maintain than a fleet of buses and the roads they travel. Again, the HART plan demonstrates this clearly. State of good repair (aka maintenance) for buses accounts for over 7% of the capital budget, while state of good repair for light rail is only 2.5%, almost one third the cost. In part, this is because a rail car can last up to 60 years; a bus can last maybe a quarter of that of that time.

The difference in operating costs is even more dramatic. Buses are significantly more expensive to operate than light rail, and while capital costs are a one-time, up-front investment, operating expenses continue to add up over the lifetime of a system. For Hillsborough’s system, a whopping 82% of the operating budget will go to buses with only 18% going to light rail. The reasons for these differences are many, including the fact that every bus needs one driver, while one driver can pilot a train several cars long. Light rail also runs on electricity, which is cheaper than gasoline (and also means they can someday be powered by cleaner energy sources like wind and solar).

We need these buses, but it’s important to note the irony here. The critics disfavor rail systems stating that they don’t cover their operating costs with farebox revenue while simultaneously supporting buses that have higher operating costs and a lower farebox recovery (Weyrich and Lind, 2001).

What about the so-called benefit of bus flexibility? Opponents use the term “fixed rail” and criticize rail for having tracks that are to move if “population shifts.” They might as well be talking about “fixed roads,” and it is most certainly more expensive and difficult to relocate a 6+-lane freeway than it is to move some tracks. However, we wouldn’t need to move them. One of the advantages of rail, one that is lost when you rely on buses, is the ability to spur development. This is a key purpose of infrastructure, and is the major reason for it’s positive effect on the local economy.

Bus transit has no effect on development, precisely because it may be here today but could just as easily be gone tomorrow. However, when it comes to rail, investors can count on it being there next week, next year, and next decade. Other communities who have invested in light rail systems have reaped these benefits. Charlotte experienced $1.87 billion in investment and development along their light rail corridor. In Phoenix, $5.9 billion in private development and $1.5 billion in (non-rail) public development has been generated along the METRO line since 2001. A bus-only approach loses these benefits, which are much needed in this down economy.

Check the facts:
Cambridge Systematics, “Economic Impact of HART: Existing and Future Expansions,” Final Report, July 2010
HART Rapid Transit Investment Financial Plan, http://www.gohart.org/whytransit/financial_plan.pdf
Weyrich and Lind, Twelve Anti-Transit Myths: A Conservative Critique The Free Congress Foundation, 2001

3 myths down, 5 to go!

Heroically yours,

Mobility Mike and Commuter Carly

Myth 2: Light rail fails to attract new transit riders to reduce automobile travel and congestion

Here again the critics are wrong. While large cities with transit are certainly still congested, it is illogical to argue they would not be MORE congested without their transit systems. Here are the facts that show how transit can and does relieve congestion:

• In 2007, APTA (American Public Transportation Association) found that if transit were unavailable, more than half of rail passengers would travel by automobile.
• Residents of areas with high quality transit drive 23% less, and residents of areas with high quality public transit and mixed land use drive 43% less than elsewhere in the region (see below). Less driving, of course, means less congestion!
• For a specific example, we can look at St. Louis, where MetroLink (their light rail) carried 14.2 million passengers in 1999. About 60% of MetroLink's riders were commuters that would otherwise have taken the highways. Excluding the roughly 25% who had no car available or did not drive, MetroLink is removing about 12,500 cars from St. Louis's rush hour traffic every day.

(Reproduced from Litman, 2010)

Given these facts, how do the critics explain such claims? They choose their words carefully. “Transit” includes both rail and buses. Buses have little effect on congestion because they generally serve transit-dependent populations who are unable to drive and would not add to congestion in the bus’s absence. Ironically, light rail opponents also advocate for a bus-only approach to public transportation when it is needed (see Myth 3) so maybe they aren’t so concerned about reducing congestion after all.

Check the facts:
Litman, T., Evaluating rail transit criticism, Victoria Transport Policy Institute, 2010
Ohland, G. and Poticha, S., Street Smart: Streetcars and Cities in the Twenty-First Century, Reconnecting America, 2006

Heroically yours,

Mobility Mike and Commuter Carly

Myth 1: Rail transit is outdated and and ridership is declining

What’s to blame for this myth: outdated numbers that the critics continue to rely on. There was a time when ridership was declining, thanks to government subsidies that favored automobile travel, sprawling development and a lack of available high quality transit. Under these conditions it is not surprising that the percentage of total trips made by transit fell dramatically as automobile trips soared.

However, in recent years there has been a dramatic turnaround, and transit ridership has grown steadily to reach its highest level in five decades (see below). Between 1995 and 2009, the U.S. population grew by 15%, automobile use (in vehicle miles traveled) grew 21%, and transit ridership grew by 31%. We can expect this trend to continue, as an aging population, rising fuel prices, increased urbanization and changing consumer preferences (especially among young professionals) are increasing demand for alternative modes and multi-modal development.

(Source: 2010 APTA Public Transportation Fact Book)

So clearly, if transit was a declining industry, it isn't any more. It’s important to note that one of the most important reasons for the turnaround is the spread of high quality transit to more cities, usually as light or commuter rail. Once people have a chance to experience the best of transit, all they want to hear is when they can get more, and these outdated claims fall on deaf ears.

Heroically yours,

Mobility Mike and Commuter Carly

A fact-flinging showdown? Of course, we accept!!

As a super-duo, we've faced our share of challengers. Chief among these are the nation's most vocal transit opponents, some of whom are in town TONIGHT for a rally hosted by the local opponents of Hillsborough County's transportation referendum. They have come bearing some of the most common anti-transit myths, but as your defenders of transportation truth, we're ready for them! Armed with the facts, we're refuting the top 8 myths we expect to hear at tonight's rally, so stay tuned...

Heroically Yours,

Mobility Mike and Commuter Carly

An incomplete cost analysis is worse than no cost analysis

An opinion piece ran in today's Tribune that threw around a lot of numbers and made a lot of negative claims about transportation investment, particularly about light rail. Now, to start off, we have serious concerns over the phrase "transit tax" (25% goes to roads) and the usual 14% misinformation (see our earlier post). Not only that, but including things like fare box revenue and an existing property tax as part of the so called "transit tax" is a bit of a stretch to say the least.

However, our biggest concern is not with the numbers themselves, but rather the false comparison they make to so-called "alternatives." In his analysis, the author paints a biased picture by ignoring important costs and misrepresenting the cost of doing nothing. Here's what he missed:

1. The author claims buses are a better alternative because they are flexible. But it is precisely because of their flexibility that buses fail to encourage high-density development around stations, forgoing the benefit of the $4-6 of private money that is invested for every $1 spent on fixed transportation like light rail.
2. Buses do need to be part of the solution, but the author misleadingly presents his case as if they are a minor or non-existent part of the plan. In fact, buses will account for 82% of operating costs for the system and 32% of overall referendum spending.
3. He completely ignores the real dollar costs of congestion on our roads. Our drivers already waste over $900 each year sitting in traffic, and these costs will only go up if Hillsborough continues to rely on roads alone.
4. He completely omits the cost of road widenings, including land acquisition and construction costs, which exceed the cost of rail after 8 lanes (see info from the MPO: www.mpo2035.org/faqs.html).
5. He fails to take into account the impact of projected population growth (almost 460,000 new residents in the next 15 years), which will put more pressure on roads.
6. He overlooks the fact that roads generate zero revenue and thus are paid for exclusively with public debt, unless he is proposing we make all of our roads toll roads...
7. He completely ignores the environmental cost of continuing to rely exclusively on automobiles and buses.
8. Finally,he completely overlooks the fact that state and federal funds set aside for transit will be spent for whichever communities qualify for the funding, and future generations will incur that debt regardless, and may as well benefit from it.

With so many "oversights" we can't help but find this piece to be deliberately misleading to voters who deserve a complete and accurate picture of the cost of this plan AS WELL AS the cost of NOT enacting this plan.

Heroically yours,

Mobility Mike and Commuter Carly

Check the facts:

http://www.mpo2035.org/faqs.html
http://www.gohart.org/whytransit/financial_plan.pdf