Is the transportation improvement initiative unfair to transit? Heck no! In fact, it's overly generous.

We continue to have transit advocates decry the transportation improvement initiative. Among the claims they make, is that it would unfairly decrease the allocation to transit. In fact, they are partially correct. It would decrease the transportation allocation to transit to no more than 10%, five times what transit actually warrants based upon it
fs 2% share of passenger miles. And again and again we hear the cry, but roads are subsidized to a much greater extent than transit. This statement reflects, at best, their ignorance, and at worst, their blind adherence to propaganda.

Since agriculture and commerce started, there have always been roads. Roads preceded the auto by millenia. They would be necessary regardless of whether or not autos (or transit for that matter) existed. But THE FACT OF THE MATTER is that transit has been over-funded (relative to it
fspassenger miles traveled) for some time, both at the state and federal level:

Transportation Statistics Annual Report 1998 http://www.bts.gov/programs/transtu/tsar/tsar98/chap1_7.pdfFor the 1984 to 1994 period, the federal government collected more in transportation revenues than it spent directly on transportation. A large portion of federal transportation revenues was transferred to state and local governments as transportation grants, which were then counted in the transportation expenditures of state and local governments. In FY 1994, federal transportation grants totaled $23.7 billion, equivalent to 93 percent of the federal government
fs transportation revenues in the same year. The lion
fs share of federal grants was spent on highway-related programs. Specifically, 77 percent of federal transportation grants went to highways in FY 1994 (see figure 2-5). Transit was the second largest recipient of federal transportation grants, accounting for 15.8 percent in FY 1994.

Federal Transportation Grants and Modal Shares: 1984
|94

Transit led all modes in the growth of total government transportation expenditures between FY 1993 and FY 1994, increasing by 11.8 per-cent. This increase bumped transit
fs share in total government transportation expenditures from 18.7 percent in FY 1993 to 19.5 percent in FY 1994. Although highway expenditures have consistently accounted for a dominant share of government transportation expenditures, they have grown more slowly than other modes in recent years. Between FY 1993 and FY 1994, highway expenditures increased 6.8 percent, a slightly lower rate of increase than that of total government transportation expenditures. Although the share of highway expenditures in the total consequently decreased only 0.2 percent, FY 1994 was the first year since 1984 in which the share of highway expenditures in total government transportation expenditures was lower than 60 percent (USDOT BTS 1997b).

SO HERE ARE THE REAL FACTS. Spending on transit by the federal government was 19.5%/60% of highway spending. Despite the fact that transit contributed only 2% of the passenger miles, it got almost one-third of the revenues that highways got. State spending was similar.

That
fs why the transportation improvement initiative is important. Please support it, and work for

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), January 07, 2000

Answers

passage of this important initiative. It's are best hope for getting out of gridlock in our lifetimes.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), January 07, 2000.

And it would be different if the plan to subsidize transit to decrease congestion were working. It
fs not. The problem with transit is not a supply problem, it
fs a demand problem. People don
ft want to use transit. We have tried, "build it and they will come." They stayed away in droves.

Transportation Statistics Annual Report 1998 http://www.bts.gov/programs/transtu/tsar/tsar98/chap1_7.pdf

Urban Transit URBAN TRANSIT CAPACITY, MEASURED BY VEHICLE-MILES OPERATED, INCREASED 13 PERCENT between 1985 and 1995 to nearly 2.4 billion. Although buses experienced the lowest percentage increase during this period (9 percent), they still accounted for about two-thirds of all urban transit vehicle-miles in 1995. Among transit rail modes, heavy rail had the most vmt (522 million), followed by commuter (217 million) and light rail (34 million). Despite the relatively low number of light rail vehicle-miles operated in 1995, it was more than twice the number operated in 1985 (USDOT FTA various years). THE NUMBER OF URBAN TRANSIT VEHICLES IN RUSH HOUR SERVICE INCREASED 5 PERCENT BETWEEN 1985 AND 1995; the number of buses increased by 3 percent from 42,600 to 44,100, and rail vehicles increased 11 percent from 11,800 to 13,100. The largest percentage increases occurred in light rail and commuter rail vehicles, 37 percent and 22 percent, respectively, while heavy rail in-creased by 4 percent. In addition, route mileage serviced overall increased 14 percent to 163,900 miles in 1995. Of those miles, 96 percent were bus route-miles, 2.5 percent were commuter rail, 1 percent were heavy rail, and 0.3 percent were light rail (USDOT FTA various years). UNLINKED PASSENGER TRIPS DECREASED BETWEEN 1985 AND 1995 FROM 8.3 BILLION TO 7.3 BILLION

Despite a decade of population growth, a 5% increase in transit vehicles, and about 300 million miles of new routes, the useage decreased by 12%. And we continue to POUR money into transit.

The problem isn
ft a capacity problem. Putting more empty transit seats on the road, beside the multitude of empty seats already out there, isn
ft going to get people to use transit. Currently the average Metro bus runs with 15 of it
fs 60+ seats full. Adding another 60 empty seats, isn
ft going to help congestion. Time to build roads.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), January 07, 2000.

TRAFFIC CONGESTION DRIVEN BY SPRAWL (Source: The Surface Transportation Policy Project, www.transact.org)

Analysis finds new roads may just make things worse

(Washington) A new analysis finds that traffic congestion is getting worse in major American metropolitan areas because of sprawl and its impact on driving habits. Using new data from the Texas Transportation Institute, the companion analysis by the Surface Transportation Policy Project finds that neither population growth nor too few roads are to blame for the rise in traffic jams.

While the population in all 68 metro areas studied grew by 22 million since 1982, the increase in driving has crowded the roads with the equivalent of 70 million more drivers. For example, in Washington DC, a population increase of 765,000 feels like an increase of more than 2 million on the roadways, because residents are driving 77 percent more.

"This analysis shows just why drivers have felt so besieged by ever-increasing traffic. Sprawl is making just about everyone drive farther and more often, and that fills up the roads." said Roy Kienitz, Executive Director of STPP. The paper, Why Are the Roads So Congested? A Companion Analysis of the Texas Transportation Institute's Data on Metropolitan Congestion was released today by the Surface Transportation Policy Project.

Sixty-nine percent of the increase in driving from 1983 to 1990 was due to factors influenced by sprawl, such as longer car trips and a switch to driving from walking or transit. Population growth itself was only responsible for 13 percent of the growth in driving.

STPP found that every 10 percent increase in the highway network results in a 5.3 percent increase in the amount of driving, over and above any increases caused by population growth or other factors. This confirms other research on induced travel, the phenomenon in which increased road capacity generates additional traffic. In addition, road-building has not been an effective congestion-fighting measure: the metro areas that added the most highway space per person have seen congestion levels rise at a slightly higher rate than areas that added few roads per resident.

"It turns out that the most common response to congestion, road building, is just making things worse," said Kienitz. "We don't need more of the same: we need new solutions that give people a way to avoid traffic jams."

The analysis also found that metro areas are adding highway lanes faster than they are adding residents to drive on them. In the 68 metro areas studied, population grew by 22 percent, while road space grew by 33 percent. On average, these metro areas have 10 percent more highway space per person than they did in 1982. The analysis includes tables for each of the metro areas studied.

STPP's full analysis is available at http://www.transact.org. The Texas Transportation Institute provided STPP with early access to its data. To view the Texas Transportation Institute's new report, please go to http://mobility.tamu.edu.

The Surface Transportation Policy Project is a nationwide network of more than 250 organizations, including planners, community development organizations, and advocacy groups, devoted to improving the nation's transportation system.

-- Common Sense (1@hotmail.com), January 07, 2000.

Craig,

With a few odd ball exceptions, I think most people are in agreement that roads need to be the priority in this state, after so many years of neglect.

I have spent a bit of time looking at overall figures for (Bus mostly) Transit around the country. My interpretation of fare recovery figures is that on average, no other region of the country has a higher rate of subsidy for transit than Washington State. Percentage of ridership does not seem to have an overall effect on subsidy percentages either. Even woefully inefficient systems seem to operate with a lower percentage of subsidies. There is no doubt in my mind that Washington taxpayers have been taken to the cleaners so to speak.

For those of you who don't agree and want to compare

http://www.ntdprogram.com/NTD/Profiles.nsf/1998+TOC?OpenView

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), January 07, 2000.

"I have spent a bit of time looking at overall figures for (Bus mostly) Transit around the country. My interpretation of fare recovery figures is that on average, no other region of the country has a higher rate of subsidy for transit than Washington State"

That pretty much agrees with my research as well, Marsha. Certainly in terms of farebox recovery, transit users get away with far smaller user fees (relative to transportation cost) here than the average. Farebox recovery for most large systems are around 40% nationwide. Metro at 21% (these are just of operating costs, not total costs) is about the highest in the state, and it only gets worse after that.

Transit in Washington State has not been operated as a business, it has been more akin to a religion. That's one of the reason that LINK and Sounder have DOT support, despite the fact that they will undoubtedly hurt the more cost-effective bus service. That's why Washington DOT continues to try to build passenger rail service between Oregon and BC, despite the massive failures and impending bankruptcy of Amtrak.

When you're a zealot, cost-effectiveness and common sense just don't matter. This system will expand to the maximum extent that it can based upon the resources it has. Witness the transit grant for the Okanogan, AFTER the locals turned it down! If you put another billion dollars annually on the table it'd get absorbed into a progressively less cost-effective system, without a ripple. They can spend every dime they can beg, borrow, cajole, and extort, unencumbered by questions of whether or not they SHOULD spend it.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), January 07, 2000.

BTW: For those not in the know, the STTP (www.transact.org) is put together by a coalition of New Urbanists and environmental groups Their assessments do not necessarily represent the assessments of the mainline transportation engineering community (although they are REAL popular with Al Gore, the "inventor of the internet"). . A more balanced presentation can be found on the Brookings Institute website:(http://www.brookings.org/press/review/fa98/gordon2.pdf) ;)

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), January 07, 2000.

Craig--"New Urbanists"

Shallora must be back.

-- Brad (knotwell@my-deja.com), January 07, 2000.

Just a few things about "sprawl."

Sprawl is partly choice- People WANT to live in suburbs rather than cities. They voluntarily accept longer commutes as a price of doing that. They WANT bigger houses, with massive kitchens that they use far less than previous generations did. They acquire more junk to fill the big house. They order out pizza more often than they use their big kitchens. Doesn't necessarily make sense, but they do WANT these things.

Sprawl is partly being driven out- Look at what SmartGrowth has done to cost of housing within the UGMA. Housing is becoming less affordable. Much of the flight to the suburbs is about crime and inadequate school systems. Cure these, and more might stay in the cities.

Sprawl is partly about new opportunities. If I can telecommute from a pristine rural community in the San Juans (or in my case, near Port Townsend), why would I want to live in an apartment in Seattle?

-- Mike Alworth (m_alworth@olympusnet.com), January 07, 2000.

No common sense,

I guess you can extract any information you want from the TTI Study if you are politically motivated to. Did you actually read any of the TTI analysis? Last two paragraphs of the page one titled "Mobility declines Less where transport investments are made" states "The analysis shows that overall mobility in urban areas is better if areas attempt to construct additional roadway at a pace similar to that of traffic demand growth. There is a correlation between the lane mile addition "deficit" and mobility levels. If roadway is not added at a pace similar to growth in traffic demand, travel time and delay per person increases."

"The bottom line from this analysis: Road construction does help slow the growth of traffic congestion, but roadway expansion opportunities are often limited because of environmental concerns, public opinion and construction costs."

http://mobility.tamu.edu./news_release/mobility_investment.pdf

Mass transit has been given a chance to solve the congestion problems. It didn't. Better go get some more common sense. Build the roads, and stop throwing away my money.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), January 07, 2000.

common sense-

Please address the references that I gave. We BUILT increased transit capacity. Fewer people used it. If people won't use transit (and the demographics are against it worldwide), what are YOUR solutions? Do we FORCE people to use transit?? I find that unlikely. We have a hard time forcing people out of Starbucks they are looting. Talk about a victimless crime! Let's fill the jails with SOV drivers, that'll certainly be cheaper than building roads. NOT!

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), January 07, 2000.

Marsha-

Here's the reference for the info I gave you above. This is for 1997, but it is close to the 1998 values.

1997 National Transit Summaries and Trends As shown in Exhibit 3-1, passenger fares and local funds compose the bulk of operations funding. In 1997, fares contributed 39.7 percent of the funds applied for transit operations while local assistance contributed 31 percent. State operating assistance accounted for 20.4 percent while Federal funds supplied 3.4 percent. http://www.ntdprogram.com/NTD/NTST.nsf/NTST/1997/$File/Ntst97.pdf

While thr REST of the country has been covering ALMOST 40% of their transit operating costs through user fees, Washington State has been getting from 21% to about 5%. And that is only a portion of the subsidy for transit, since it doesn't cover capital costs. These make a serious difference too. Compare this operating revenue graph for Pierce transit ( http://www.ptbus.pierce.wa.us/99budget/oprev.htm) with the total budget ( http://www.ptbus.pierce.wa.us/99budget/bsum.htm). As you can see user fees cover a relatively trivial amount of transit cost. Not a big deal if transit actually carried enough people to make a significant difference in traffic volume, but unfortunately it doesn't. That being the case, the money would be a lot better spent on ROADS.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), January 07, 2000.

Craig,

The first reference is 95 pages. I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), January 07, 2000.

Go to the economics of transportation chapter. It's in there.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), January 08, 2000.