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

Alternatives? Sure... but not better ones

In a recent article in the local media, an opponent of the Transportation Referendum was quoted as saying "We're not saying there isn't a problem, but I believe there are other alternatives out there." What other alternatives could they mean? Alternative technologies? Alternative funding mechanisms? Let's start with technology.

Fortunately, as part of a comprehensive planning effort, all conceivable alternatives are being considered. In fact, this process is even called an Alternatives Analysis, a step in the process of applying for federal matching funds. This process compares a number of different scenarios to determine which option, by the numbers, performs best in terms of ridership, cost, and economic development potential and best meets the needs of the community. Through this process, HART has considered four options within the study corridor: No Build, Enhanced Bus, Bus Rapid Transit, and Light Rail Transit. No Build is essentially a “do nothing” scenario. Enhanced Bus consists of beefing up the existing bus system without creating dedicated lanes or other enhancements that would require significant investment in infrastructure. The Bus Rapid Transit alternative would use bus only but create dedicated lanes, and the Light Rail alternative would, of course, construct light rail. HART is now in the third phase of this process and according to the numbers, light rail appears to be the best option to meet the needs of our community.

Or maybe by alternatives, they were referring to widening roads. In some of the outer portions of Hillsborough County, widening roads is still the most cost effective approach to dealing with growth and congestion. However, in the central city, this is clearly no longer the case. How can we be sure? How else, the facts!

Existing roadways in the urban center are constrained by neighborhoods, right-of-way costs, and environmental restrictions. These constraints are driving the costs of road expansion through the roof. The current construction along I-275 between downtown and Westshore is adding 4 lanes to a short 4 mile segment… at a cost of $696 million. A transit line can carry more people in a 100 ft right of way than a 6-lane highway (which requires a 300 ft right of way), limiting the costs when compared to roads. The segment of I-275 north of downtown, if expanded to 12 lanes, would cost $2.2 billion (or more) and would still be more than 28% over capacity, suggesting it may need to be expanded to 16 lanes (at even greater cost) to accommodate traffic. In comparison, the cost to construct light rail along that same corridor is estimated at $900 million, less than half the cost for a system that can carry the same or more people!

Clearly, a new light rail system and a supercharged supporting bus system are what we need. How about other ways to fund them?

No other funding option currently available to the County can raise nearly as much revenue while at the same time limiting the affect on the taxpayers. This graph from the MPO shows quite clearly that the sales surtax outperforms other options many times over:

What’s the alternative to these options, raising property taxes? We know no one likes that. It’s not even legally possible to raise property taxes high enough to generate this kind of revenue. If it was, the property tax would still have to be raised by more than 3 mills to generate the same amount of revenue! With the sales surtax, 15-20% of the system will be paid for by tourists, limiting the impact on residents.

So, are there other "alternatives?" Of course! But none that are better than the plan we have now, not according to these numbers.

Heroically Yours,

Mobility Mike and Commuter Carly

Check the facts:

http://www.fta.dot.gov/planning/newstarts/planning_environment_2608.html

http://www.gohartaa.org

http://www.mpo2035.org/faqs.html

Reasonably Available and New Revenue, Hillsborough County MPO, http://www.mpo2035.org/downloads/2035%20Tech%20Memos/Reasonably_Avail_and_New_Revenues_FINAL.pdf

Weyrich, Paul M. and Lind, William S. How Transit Benefits People Who Do Not Ride It: A conservative inquiry, Free Congress Foundation, October, 2003