Rail Transit Reduces Urban Livability:
New Study Reveals the True Costs of Fixed-Route Public Transit
2004-04
Many policymakers and urban planners claim that rail transit improves urban livability. Proponents of rail transit in the Puget Sound Region used this argument to win voter approval for various forms of fixed-route public transit, including the Sounder commuter trains, Tacoma streetcar line, Link light rail in Seattle and the $1.75 billion extension to the 1962 Monorail. These projects have been plagued by cost overruns, revenue shortfalls, schedule delays and considerable public criticism.
A recent report, “Great Rail Disasters,” published by Washington Policy Center and the Center for the American Dream, finds that these problems are not uncommon. The groundbreaking report reviewed transit, congestion, cost, safety and other data for all two-dozen U.S. urban areas that have rail transit. Our conclusion is that, far from enhancing livability, rail transit reduces the livability of urban areas. In particular, rail transit tends to reduce the mobility of both transit riders and auto drivers. (For a free copy of the report visit www.washingtonpolicy.org or call (888) 972-9272.)
Collectively, the two-dozen urban areas with rail transit lost 33,000 transit commuters during the 1990s. By comparison, the two-dozen largest regions with bus-only transit gained 27,000 transit commuters in the 1990s.
Rail advocates often call rail critics “anti-transit,” but our analysis shows it is rail advocates who are anti-transit. During the 1990s, a period of rapid growth in the transit industry, transit’s share of motorized travel declined in two out of three rail regions.
For auto users, rail transit doesn’t relieve congestion. In fact, it seems to make it worse. Sixteen of the twenty urban areas with the fastest-rising congestion have rail transit, and one of the other four is building a rail system.
One reason rail transit doesn’t work is its high cost. Our study shows that buses are far more cost effective than rail while freeways are, on average, fourteen times more effective at moving people as building new rail lines.
Congestion in rail regions is rapidly growing because rail’s high cost leads transportation planners and public officials to dedicate 50 to 80 percent of their transportation funds to transit systems that carry only 1 to 5 percent of urban travel. Prioritization of high-cost fixed rail projects leaves few taxpayer resources available to relieve congestion for the other 95 to 99 percent of travelers.
Despite the claims of proponents, rail transit is not particularly good for the environment. Three out of five rail lines consume more energy per passenger mile than automobiles. Data are not available for the Sounder commuter trains, but given their low ridership they probably use far more energy than passenger cars.
Since automobiles pollute most in congested traffic, rail transit often leads to more, not less, urban air pollution. Even where rail transit can reduce air pollution, the cost is exorbitant -- roughly $1 million per ton of reduced emissions, compared to $10,000 per ton for many other air quality measures.
Rail lines, especially light rail and commuter rail, are also dangerous, killing far more people per passenger mile than buses or autos. Commuter trains typically kill twice as many people and light-rail trains three times as many people per passenger mile as buses or interstate freeways.
One of the primary reasons rail transit fails to reduce congestion is it doesn’t go from where you are to where you want to go. Even if Seattle built another 100 miles of rail transit, well over 95 percent of all motorized travel in the region would still be by automobile or bus. Where rail transit does go, it goes slow, averaging just 20 miles per hour for light rail and 30 for commuter rail.
Rail transit advocates site Chicago and Washington, DC as models of fixed-route transit success, but the facts tell a different story. Despite Chicago’s extensive rail network, Chicago transit carried 15-percent fewer riders in 2000 than in 1990, even with an 18-percent increase in the regional job base. Tourists love Washington, DC’s subway system. Yet the District lost 22,000 transit commuters in the 1990s even while it gained more than 100,000 jobs. If rail transit doesn’t work in these regions, how will it work in Puget Sound, where urban density is far below that of most east coast cities?
Our research shows Seattle can reduce congestion and provide a more flexible, cost effective transit system without the massive expense of fixed-route public transit. Bus-rapid transit, which means running buses on rail schedules, can move people faster than rail. At a fraction of the cost of rail and without waiting for years of construction, Sound Transit could start running bus-rapid transit lines that go faster and serve more areas than rail.
To reduce congestion and further improve transit service, Seattle can turn existing high-occupancy vehicle lanes into high-occupancy/toll (HOT) lanes, which low-occupancy vehicles can use by paying a toll. Toll revenues can then be used to offset the cost of building a complete network of HOT lanes and expanding general-purpose capacity throughout the region, speeding the bus-rapid transit lines and reducing congestion for everyone.
The choice is clear: Policymakers can spend billions of taxpayer dollars on rail transit that reduces urban livability; or they can relieve congestion and improve transit at a much lower cost by building a HOT-lane network and running bus-rapid transit. I trust state and local policymakers will choose wisely.
Randal O’Toole (rot@i2i.org) is director of the Center for the American Dream (www.i2i.org/cad.aspx) and author of the new report, “Great Rail Disasters,” which is available at www.washingtonpolicy.org or by calling (888) 972-9272.
