Commuters and curmudgeons have been slinging mud at public transit, saying it’s inefficient, outdated, unattractive, and a leech on municipal budgets. A report by the Victoria Transport Policy Institute, “Evaluating Transit Criticism,” refutes these and a litany of other outlandish claims (i.e. “transit doesn’t reduce traffic congestion” and “harms poor people”) with hard-and-fast statistics. The study makes a stellar case for investing in rail systems for every major city.

The report is a comprehensive, data-rich argument in favor of public rails that’s definitely worth a gander. But, for now, we’ll save you the dry data and deliver the juicy bits (after the jump):

• The report found that cities with no major rail system, like Los Angeles, suffer far more congestion than cities with widely used, efficient rail transit (like New York and Chicago). “Rail transit significantly reduces congestion,” said the Institute. Seems like a no-brainer to us.
• Rail transit operating costs also tend to be lower than for buses.
• In congested urban areas, rail systems actually get commuters to their destination faster than an automobile (bus or car). There’s no sitting in traffic, or being stuck behind the wheel, breathing fumes.
• Many highway projects run over-budget and aren’t completed on time. By contrast, most rail construction is completed by its projected deadline and within its original budget.

Anti-rail naysayers claim that commuters “love their cars” too much to give up driving. However, the study says, rail systems don’t require people to relinquish driving altogether. Rather, access to a rail system enables commuters to skip traffic and take the train, instead, reducing car travel, overall. The report cites evidence that “many motorists would willingly shift a portion of their travel to transit, provided that it is convenient, comfortable, affordable and prestigious. In most cases a 5-20% mode shift on major corridors is sufficient to justify rail investments.” I, for one, would rather kick back on a train (which entails reading, people-watching, rocking out with headphones, sleeping, or sipping coffee, or any combination therein) than sit in sluggish traffic, screaming inwardly, with weary nerves and patience, worrying over whether I’ll make it to work on time.

For proof that taking public transit creates less stress than driving, check out this study by the APTA.

Photos via flickr by mirkogarufi and the dancing kids.

Comments (6)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Aaron Antrim said:

I looked at this article and found that operating costs for rail and bus are not very different (looks like a difference of maybe 10%), but we need to consider the difference in capital costs. I'm not saying that I'm not a fan of light rail where appropriate, it's just that this fact should be better clarified. Also, Bus Rapid Transit offers many of the advantages of light rail (and some extra).

May 04, 2008 | url

The Overhead Wire said:

Extra advantages over light rail? Give me a break. BRT is the oil and auto industry trying to pull the wool over people's eyes. Most BRT backers (not you of course) just hate transit. In Berkeley there are folks that said lets do BRT because LRT is too expensive. Now the mantra for many is lets just do bus because BRT is too expensive. Some people are just always going to be against transit. Now as for the operating costs, those are averages but 20 cents per passenger mile is a big deal. 20 cents times 100,000 miles is 20,000 dollars. If you have 150,000 riders per day on a bus and the average is 5 miles per rider, thats $180,000 dollars per day saved. Over the course of the year on weekdays that's $46,800,000 per year saved. Seems to me well worth it to save using rail. Yeah these are rough estimates but it gets to the point of savings with electric rail transit on trunk corridors.

May 04, 2008 | url

Alek F said:

Folks, those who support BRT - either are in denial, or are anti-transit. Because - besides being "flexible" (that is, being able to deviate from the given route), BRT has no advantages whatsoever. Alas, the current Orange Line busway in LA's Valley sector has demonstrated quite a significant number of drawbacks. Such as, deteriorating road pavement, very limited capacity (comparing to rail), uncomfortable & bumpy ride, number of accidents (ugh!) and potential for more accidents (mostly due to absence of crossing gates - which by definition BRT will never get installed); slower overall speeds; constant stopping at red lights (which increases overall travel times dramatically); and last but not least - much lower overall customer appeal. The bottom line is - a Bus will always be a Bus - even on dedicated bus lines. I've taken the Orange Line quite a few times - and it's no comparison to the wonderful Light-Rail lines we have! Hopefully, in the future Orange Line will be converted to Light-Rail.

May 05, 2008

Monotonehell said:

@Alek F: Regarding BRT V lightrail. Taking all that you've said into account; what's your opinion of a properly run grade separated BRT like the Adelaide guided busway (O-Bahn) where the busway is on purpose built concrete tracks (as opposed to the poor attempt of the Orange line)? Especially in an urban sprawl where a light rail needs to be serviced by feeder buses. Your arguments seem to all be absed on poor implimentation which can equally be applied to a poor rail system. I been lead to believe that rail is best suited to narrow coridors with not too many stops inbetween, where as busways better suit urban sprawl (ability to provide door to door services without transfers). FYI: en. wikipedia. org/ wiki/ Obahn

May 06, 2008

Scott Mercer said:

Los Angeles has had a "busway on purpose built concrete tracks" since 1973. It's called the El Monte Transitway (formerly Busway), and it actually uses hosts multiple bus lines from different transit providers. It gets riders, (as does the similar Harbor Transitway) but not nearly as many our light rail lines do. Metro tries promoting them, but I have been on them: the buses are empty while the Blue Line light rail trains are much closer to full, even outside of rush hours. Even though it would be easier to take the Transitways for certain destinations. Check out the map: The El Monte Busway has only four stops, while the Gold Line light rail has 12 stops in a similar amount of mileage (Gold Line is longer, but comparable).

May 07, 2008 | url

Monotonehell said:

@Scott Mercer: The El Monte is not a guided busway like the Adelaide Obahn. Please visit the wikipedia page I posted. (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obahn) The OBahn is a not just another lane or a busway that carpools can share. It's a guided busway, once a bus enters the busway the drivers do not have to steer, allowing the buses to zip through the suburbs at speeds up to 100KMph (62MPH). It's like a combination of a train and a bus, so you get the speeds and guidance of a train with the door to door service and feeders of buses.

May 08, 2008

Name

Email

Website

Title

Comment

Add Comment