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