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