CALPIRG Education Fund
A Better Way to Go
Meeting America’s 21st Century Transportation
Challenges with Modern Public Transit
A Better Way to Go
Meeting America’s 21st Century
Transportation Challenges
with Modern Public Transit
Phineas Baxandall, Ph. D.
U. S. PIRG Education Fund
Tony Dutzik and
Joshua Hoen
Frontier Group
March 2008
Acknowledgments
The authors wish to thank the following individuals for their thoughtful review of
this report: Todd Litman of the Victoria Transport Policy Institute, Robert Padgette,
Director of Policy Development and Research at the American Public Transportation
Association and Scott Bernstein, President, Center for Neighborhood Technology.
Thanks also to Susan Rakov and Elizabeth Ridlington of Frontier Group for their
editorial support.
CALPIRG Education Fund thanks the Surdna Foundation for making this project
possible.
The authors bear responsibility for any factual errors. The recommendations are those
of CALPIRG Education Fund. The views expressed in this report are those of the
authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of our funders or those who provided
editorial review.
Copyright 2008 CALPIRG Education Fund
With public debate around important issues often dominated by special interests pur-suing
their own narrow agendas, CALPIRG Education Fund offers an independent
voice that works on behalf of the public interest. CALPIRG Education Fund, a 501( c)( 3)
organization, works to protect consumers and promote good government. We investi-gate
problems, craft solutions, educate the public, and offer Californians meaningful
opportunities for civic participation.
Frontier Group conducts research and policy analysis to support a cleaner, healthier and
more democratic society. Our mission is to inject accurate information and compelling
ideas into public policy debates at the local, state and federal levels.
For more information about CALPIRG Education Fund, or for additional copies of
this report, please visit www. calpirg. org.
Cover photos: ( top) Remus Eserblom, istockphoto. com; ( bottom, left to right) Matthew Gonzalez, istockphoto. com; Cosmonaut Creative
Media, istockphoto. com; Lane Transit District; istockphoto. com.
Layout: Harriet Eckstein Graphic Design
Table of Contents
Executive Summary 1
Introduction 6
America’s Transportation System Is in Trouble 9
America’s Transportation System Is Too Reliant on Cars 9
America’s Transportation System Consumes Too Much Oil 11
America’s Car- Centered Transportation System Does an Increasingly Poor Job
of Getting People Where They Need to Go 12
America’s Transportation System Is a Key Contributor to Global Warming 13
America’s Transportation System Creates a Host of Other Problems 13
Public Policy Decisions Have Driven America’s Overreliance on Cars 16
A New Transportation Future for the 21st Century 17
The Benefits of Transit for America 18
Transit Provides a Wide Range of Benefits 18
Quantifying the Benefits: Oil Savings, Congestion Relief and
Global Warming Emission Reductions 21
Understanding Transit’s Benefits: Who Gains and Why? 24
Summary 32
America’s Underinvestment in Transit 33
Tallying the Dividends from America’s Investment in Transit 33
America’s History of Underinvestment in Transit 35
Funding Transit Today: Federal and State Efforts Fall Short 38
Booming Demand for Transit: Will America Miss the Opportunity? 43
A 21st Century Vision for Transit in the United States 46
A Bold, National Agenda 46
Getting There: Achieving a New Transportation Future 55
Conclusion 58
Appendix A: Technical Discussion and Methodology 60
Appendix B: Detailed Oil Savings and Emission Reduction Data 66
Notes 71
Executive Summary
Executive Summary
A merica’s automobile- centered
transportation system was a key
component of the nation’s econom-ic
prosperity during the 20th century. But
our transportation system is increasingly
out of step with the challenges of the 21st
century. Rising fuel prices, growing traf-fic
congestion, and the need to address
critical challenges such as global warm-ing
and America’s addiction to imported
oil all point toward the need for a new
transportation future.
Rail, rapid buses and other forms
of transit must play a more prominent
role in America’s future transportation
system. Clean, efficient transit service
already saves billions of gallons of oil
each year, reduces traffic congestion in
our cities, and curbs emissions of pollut-ants
that cause global warming. Transit
also generates a host of other economic
and quality- of- life benefits for our com-munities—
indeed, every dollar we invest
in transit generates approximately two
dollars in these benefits.
Every American can benefit if we ex-pand
the reach and improve the quality
of transit in the United States. By making
a bold, national commitment to expand
and improve transit, the United States
can address many of our greatest chal-lenges
and create a transportation system
built for the needs of the 21st century.
America’s transportation system is
in trouble.
America has grown more dependent
on car travel with each passing year.
America has more cars per capita than any
other nation in the world. The number of
miles driven on America’s highways has
doubled in the last quarter- century, and
our reliance on cars for transportation
is at the root of many of America’s most
intractable problems.
• Oil dependence— Two out of every
three barrels of oil the United States
consumes each year are used to fuel
our transportation system. Personal
cars and trucks account for 40 percent
of our oil consumption. The United
States remains by far the world’s
largest consumer of oil, leaving our
economy vulnerable to oil price spikes
and our national security vulnerable
A Better Way to Go
to dependence on unstable nations for
critical energy supplies.
• Traffic congestion— Gridlock on
America’s highways gets worse with
each passing year. The average Ameri-can
living in an urban area spent 38
hours— nearly a full work week—
stuck in t raf f ic delays in 2005,
twice as much t ime as in 1982.
Traffic congestion costs America’s
economy approximately $ 78 billion
and results in 4.2 billion lost hours
each year.
• Global warming – America’s trans-portation
system produces more
carbon dioxide— the leading global
warming pollutant— than the entire
economy of any other nation in the
world, except China. America must
reduce emissions from its transporta-tion
system if the world is to avoid the
most catastrophic impacts of global
warming.
Other problems caused by our cur-rent
transportation system include:
• The extraordinary expense of build-ing
and maintaining highways, which
requires more than $ 150 billion in
government expenditures each year,
and the cost of owning and operating
private vehicles, which costs American
households $ 900 billion annually.
• Damage to the environment from air
pollution, water pollution, and frag-mentation
of wildlife habitat.
• Damage to public health from air pol-lution,
traffic accidents and sedentary,
car- dependent lifestyles. Traffic ac-cidents
alone claim more than 40,000
American lives each year, more Ameri-can
lives than were lost in the Korean
War.
• Isolation for the growing elderly
population in areas not well served by
transit, as well as the disabled, children
and others who cannot operate or af-ford
to own vehicles.
• Encouragement of sprawling de-velopment
patterns that consume
open space and increase the cost of
providing public infrastructure and
services.
Transit already plays a key role in
addressing the serious problems fac-ing
America.
• In 2006, transit saved an estimated
3.4 billion gallons of gasoline in the
United States— enough to fuel 5.8
million cars for a year. In monetary
terms, transit saved more than $ 9 bil-lion
that would otherwise have been
spent on gasoline.
• In 2005, transit prevented 540.8 mil-lion
hours of traffic delay, according
to the Texas Transportation Institute,
equivalent to more than 61,700 people
sitting in traffic for an entire year. The
monetary value of those savings was
$ 10.2 billion.
• Transit reduced global warming emis-sions
by nearly 26 million metric tons
in 2006. In New York state alone, tran-sit
avoided 11.8 million metric tons of
carbon dioxide pollution— more than
was produced by the entire economies
of Rhode Island, Vermont or the Dis-trict
of Columbia.
• Transit also delivers a range of other
benefits, including opportunities for
economic development, mobility for
those without access to cars, public
health benefits, and reduced house-hold
expenditures on vehicles and
fuel.
Executive Summary
States and communities that in-vest
more in transit enjoy greater
benefits.
• The 14 cities that have built wholly
new light rail transit systems since
1980 saved more than 200 million gal-lons
of gasoline through those services
in 2006. These cities span the nation,
from Baltimore to Sacramento and
from Dallas to Minneapolis- St. Paul,
showing that rail transit can work in
a variety of cities.
• Thirty- seven states and the District
of Columbia reduced their oil con-sumption
with transit in 2006. States
that have invested aggressively reaped
greater benefits. The 10 states that
made the greatest financial invest-ments
in transit in 2004 accounted for
85 percent of the oil savings delivered
by transit service in 2006.
For every dollar invested in transit,
America receives nearly two dollars in
economic benefits.
• In 2005, federal, state and local
governments spent $ 30.9 billion to
provide transit services ( not includ-ing
fares). These investments yielded
at least $ 60 billion per year in ben-efits
from reduced vehicle expenses,
avoided congestion, global warming
emission reductions, reduced road
expenditures, reduced spending on
parking, and avoided traffic accidents.
In other words, investment in transit
more than pays for itself.
• Transit investments are potent job- cre-ators.
Investments in transit produce
19 percent more jobs than equivalent
investment in new road and bridge
projects.
Americans support expanded tran-sit
and desire more transportation
alternatives.
• Transit ridership increased by 30 per-cent
between 1995 and 2006, reach-ing
the highest ridership level since
the late 1950s. Since 1995, public
Fig. ES- 1. Transit Ridership Is on the Rise
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Transit Ridership ( million unlinked trips)
A Better Way to Go
$ 2,000,000
$ 2,500,000
$ 3,000,000
$ 3,500,000
ment ( million 2006 dollars)
$ 0
$ 500,000
$ 1,000,000
$ 1,500,000
1956
1958
1960
1962
1964
1966
1968
1970
1972
1974
1976
1977
1979
1981
1983
1985
1987
1989
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
2003
Cumulative Capital Investm
Highways
Transit
transportation ridership has been
increasing at a faster rate than vehicle
travel.
• Approximately three out of four
Americans now believe that improving
transit and building communities that
require less driving are the best solu-tions
for reducing traffic congestion.
Many cities nationwide are consider-ing
new or expanded commuter rail or
light rail networks.
Despite transit’s many benefits,
America has historically underin-vested
in transit.
• Highways have received the vast bulk
of public investment over the last half
century. Since 1956, federal, state and
local governments have invested nine
times more capital funding in highway
subsidies than in transit.
• While the federal government invests
more in transit than in the past, the
process for securing funding for new
transit lines is far more onerous and
less certain than for highway projects,
with the federal government gener-ally
picking up a smaller share of the
tab for new transit lines than for new
highway projects.
• State funding is even more out of
line with 21st century transportation
priorities. In 2004, state governments
spent nearly 13 times more public
funds on highways than on transit.
• A lack of federal and state investment
has left local governments to pick up
the tab for transit investments— with
voters approving approximately 70
percent of transportation referen-dums
appearing on ballots between
2000 and 2005. But an overreliance
on local funding can make financing
projects more difficult. It also allows
people living outside of the local area
to benefit from transit without paying
their fair share of the costs.
Figure ES- 2. Cumulative Government Capital Investment in Transit and Highways
Since 19561
Executive Summary
America must move toward a new
transportation future for the 21st
century, with clean, efficient pub-lic
transit at its core. To get there,
America needs to make transit a na-tional
priority, articulate a roadmap
for the future of transit, and commit
the resources necessary to build a 21st
century transportation system.
The vision: Transit as a national
priority. Policy- makers at the state and
federal level must realize that transit
doesn’t benefit only those who ride it.
Transit benefits all Americans through im-proved
energy security, reduced pollution
and reduced traffic congestion, among
other benefits.
The plan: A roadmap for transit.
Policy- makers must develop and ar-ticulate
a bold plan for the expansion
of transit in the 21st century. That plan
could include a commitment to:
• Build or expand rapid transit networks
in every American city with a met-ropolitan
population of 1 million or
more by 2020. Twenty- eight of Amer-ica’s
50 largest metropolitan areas have
some form of rapid transit service in
operation or under construction.
• Expand transit options in small and
medium- sized cities, as well as in rural
areas.
• Link cities via high- speed rail. The
United States should commit to
building high- speed rail along the 11
federally designated high speed corri-dors
and increasing regional rail links
elsewhere.
• Improve the transit experience through
upgraded amenities on trains and
buses, including on- board wireless In-ternet
service; technology to provide
real- time information about pickup
times; giving transit vehicles priority
in mixed traffic and creating more
dedicated lanes for transit vehicles;
and providing on- time service and
clean, comfortable vehicles.
• Serve suburban users through in-frastructure
investments— such as
ring lines and commuter rail exten-sions—
as well as through flexible
transit services such as vanpools and
community shuttles.
• Serve the transportation disadvantaged
through affordable and convenient bus
and demand- response services.
• Keep fares affordable, match transit
investments with appropriate land-use
planning, and promote other
transportation alternatives, such as
bicycling, walking, carpooling and
telecommuting.
The resources: Pay for a 21st cen-tury
transportation system by more
efficiently allocating costs. Federal
and state governments should dedicate a
greater share of transportation funding
to transit. States with anachronistic pro-hibitions
on the use of fuel tax revenue for
transit should remove those restrictions.
In addition, governments should identify
a portfolio of funding sources— including
highway taxes and user fees, and general
state and local taxes— to fairly allocate
the costs of transit system expansion
among those who will reap the benefits.
A Better Way to Go
A t the 1939 World’s Fair in New
York City, visitors were treated to
a glimpse of the future, courtesy
of General Motors. It was “ Futurama,”
a scale- model exhibit of the America
of the future, circa 1960. Visitors were
whisked through a land of broad super-highways,
on which cars moved speedily
and efficiently through the heart of clean,
uncongested, modern cities, and out to
the vast new suburbs beyond.
The vision presented at the World’s
Fair was immensely appealing to an
America that was just then emerging
from the Great Depression. The nation’s
first superhighway— the Pennsylvania
Turnpike— would not open for another
year. Conditions in many American cities
were crowded and difficult. And owner-ship
of a personal vehicle was a dream out
of reach of most Americans.
Upon leaving the exhibit, visitors were
issued a button reading, “ I have seen the
future.” And they had. For while the vi-sion
of transportation and the American
city presented in Futurama didn’t pan
out exactly as planned, that vision did in-spire
and motivate many of the decisions
that have come to shape America: the
construction of the Interstate Highway
System and the development of sprawling
suburbs linked to cities by highways.
While automobiles did provide mobil-ity
and opportunity to Americans, we
now know that the vision of an automo-bile-
centered transportation system was
not a utopia. With the shift to an automo-bile-
centered transportation system came
crushing traffic congestion, increased
dependence on oil, health- threatening
air pollution, traffic accidents, and a host
of other negative consequences— includ-ing
some that could not have even been
Introduction
The General Motors pavilion at the 1939 World’s
Fair. Credit: Gottscho- Schleisner, Inc.
Introduction
dreamed of in the late 1930s, such as
global warming.
Over time, America has taken action
to reduce the impacts of automobiles on
our environment and our health. We’ve
made vehicles more fuel- efficient. We’ve
made them safer. We’ve even made them
cleaner. But our dependence on automo-biles
for transportation has only grown.
And if vehicle travel continues to increase
at the rate it has over the past several de-cades,
even the most aggressive efforts to
increase vehicle fuel economy and reduce
carbon dioxide emissions from vehicles
will have little impact on the problems
they are designed to solve.
The challenges facing America’s
transportation system today are large,
and they will only grow larger over
time. America’s population is projected
to increase by nearly 50 percent between
2000 and 2050, adding more than 110
million people between now and mid-century.
2 Continuing along our current
transportation path is all but certain to
lead to more congestion, more pollution,
greater oil dependence and more expense
in the years ahead. Because transporta-tion
investments take years to plan and
implement, the transportation decisions
we make today will shape America’s
transportation future for decades to
come.
The time has come to do what visitors
to the 1939 World’s Fair did— to imagine
a new transportation future for America
and harness the resources to achieve it.
Clean, efficient public transit must
and will be a large part of that future.
Rail, rapid bus and other forms of tran-sit
already deliver large benefits to the
American people— saving energy, reduc-ing
pollution, curbing congestion, saving
money and enriching our communities.
Demand for improved transit is growing
nationwide as Americans tire of painful
commutes, high gasoline prices, pollu-tion
and the dependence of the United
States on foreign nations for oil.
What might that new transportation
future look like?
It might look like the new light rail
Drivers enter the Pennsylvania Turnpike, America’s first superhighway, at its opening in 1940.
Credit: Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission
A Better Way to Go
lines in cities such as Dallas and Salt
Lake City— places where critics said that
modern transit would never work— but
which are now attracting large numbers
of riders and sparking new forms of ur-ban
development. These large benefits
are now driving these and other cities to
expand their transit systems in order to
create more transportation options for
their residents.
It might look like the urban corridor
between Boston and Washington, D. C.,
where Amtrak’s high- speed rail service
is experiencing booming ridership— re-ducing
delays at congested airports
and on packed highways, and curbing
oil consumption and global warming
emissions.
It might look like the transit- oriented
communities popping up in places like
Portland, Oregon, where expanded transit
and thoughtful land- use planning are
resulting in lively new walkable neighbor-hoods
that are an attractive alternative to
suburban sprawl and avoiding costly new
investments in other infrastructure.
It might even look like the small towns
of the upper Connecticut Valley region of
New Hampshire and Vermont, where a
unique partnership of major institutions,
town and state governments has enabled
the local transit agency to provide service
free of charge— boosting ridership and
making transit a pillar of community
development.
America needs a transportation sys-tem
that can meet the needs of the 21st
century. By investing in clean, modern
transit, we can address some of America’s
most pressing challenges and improve
our environment, our economy, and our
quality of life.
America’s Transportation System Is in Trouble
S ince World War II, America has re-lied
on personal cars and trucking as
the mainstays of our transportation
system, investing trillions of dollars to
build highways, parking lots and other
forms of infrastructure to support our
car- centered transportation network.
Now, as America enters the 21st century,
our automobile- centered transportation
system, once a key element of America’s
prosperity, is increasingly becoming a
burden.
The nation faces billions of dollars
in expenditures just to maintain the
safety of our current transportation
infrastructure, never mind expanding
that infrastructure to accommodate new
needs. Our traditional system of financ-ing
transportation investments no longer
brings in enough money to pay the bills.
And our dependence on cars and trucks
leaves us increasingly reliant on oil from
unstable foreign regimes, and makes
America’s transportation system a lead-ing
contributor to global warming.
The vast and growing problems in
America’s transportation system require
that we move toward a new transportation
future— a future that has rail, rapid buses
and other forms of public transportation
at its core.
America’s Transportation
System Is Too Reliant
on Cars
Americans have historically loved their
cars, and for good reason. The automo-bile
has represented freedom and flex-ibility,
opening up new opportunities for
employment, housing and recreation.
But America’s dependence on automo-biles
has increasingly become a costly and
time- consuming burden— forcing people
to drive long distances and leaving most
of us without alternatives.
America Is Uniquely Reliant
on Cars
America’s automobile- dependent trans-portation
system is unique in the in-dustrialized
world. Other industrialized
America’s Transportation
System Is in Trouble
10 A Better Way to Go
nations— ranging from Canada to Eu-rope
to Japan— have built more balanced
transportation systems, in which cars,
trains, buses and other forms of transit
each play an important role.
The United States has 1.9 vehicles per
household on average— more vehicles
than there are drivers to drive them. 3
With about 830 automobiles per 1,000
people, America has by far more vehicles
per capita than any other nation in the
world— over one- third more than West-ern
Europe. 4 We also travel more miles in
our cars per year than residents of other
industrialized countries. The average
American travels more than twice as far
by car each year as his or her European
counterpart and more than four times as
far as the average resident of Japan. 5 ( See
Figure 1). Cars account for 86 percent of
passenger travel in the U. S. compared
with 76 percent in Europe and 58 percent
in Japan. 6
America’s dependence on cars has
grown with each passing year. Between
1970 and 2001, the number of cars on
America’s roads and streets increased by
60 percent. 8 And the number of miles
driven on U. S. roads has nearly doubled
over the last quarter- century— increasing
at a rate three times faster than popula-tion
growth. 9
The result is that more of us are
spending more time in our cars than ever
before. Between 1980 and 2006, the pro-portion
of workers driving alone to work
increased from just under two- thirds to
more than three- quarters. 10 The aver-age
commuter spent six minutes longer
driving to or from work in 2001 than he
or she did in 1983. That may not sound
like a lot of time, but over the course of
a full year, that amounts to 50 hours per
year— or more than a full work week— of
additional time spent commuting for a
full- time worker. 11
Americans travel more than
twice as far by car each year as
their European counterparts.
-
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
United States European Union Japan
Passenger- Miles Traveled per Capita
Figure 1. Annual Passenger- Miles of Travel per Capita in Passenger Cars7
America’s Transportation System Is in Trouble 11
America’s dependence on cars is more
than just costly and frustrating to the
nation’s drivers. It is also linked to many
of the nation’s most difficult and intrac-table
problems.
America’s Transportation
System Consumes
Too Much Oil
With more cars on the road traveling
more miles, America becomes more
dependent on oil with every year. Our
transportation system consumes more
than two- thirds of the oil America uses
each year, with more than 40 percent of
the oil we consume used in the gasoline
tanks of our personal vehicles. 12
Our car- dependent transportation
system is the main reason why America
consumes far more oil than any other
nation on the planet. In 2006, the United
States was responsible for 24 percent of
global consumption of oil. 13 The average
American consumed 25.2 barrels of oil in
2006, more than the average citizen of
any country outside of the Middle East. 14
( See Figure 2.)
Our dependence on oil is responsible
for several increasingly intolerable prob-lems.
First, it leaves America’s economy
vulnerable to volatile oil prices. The price
of a gallon of gasoline more than doubled
between 1990 and 2007. In constant dol-lar
terms, the price of gasoline increased
The average commuter spent six minutes longer driving to work in
2001 than in 1983— a loss of 50 hours, or more than one
full work- week, per year.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
United States
Canada
Australia
Japan
Germany
France
United Kingdom
Italy
Russia
Mexico
China
India
Barrels of Oil per Person per Year
Figure 2. Barrels of Oil Consumed per Capita, 200615
12 A Better Way to Go
from $ 1.73 to $ 2.69 per gallon— an
increase of 55 percent. 16 Oil resources
across the globe are increasingly strained
as a result of stagnant production and
booming demand in developing nations
such as China. Discovery of new oil fields
peaked in the 1960s and has declined
since. Indeed, the world now consumes
about four barrels of oil for every barrel
we discover. 17 Whether or not we have
reached “ peak oil”— the point of maxi-mum
production of oil worldwide— the
days of cheap oil are likely gone forever.
The price of a gallon of
gasoline, adjusted for inflation,
jumped 55 percent between
1990 and 2007.
America’s dependence on oil also
leaves us reliant on unstable or unfriendly
nations. As of 2005, the United States
controlled only 2 percent of global oil
reserves. 18 Nearly one- third of the world’s
oil production comes from the Middle
East. 19 And OPEC nations control 78
percent of the world’s oil reserves. 20
There are several ways to reduce our
reliance on oil for transportation. We can
build more efficient cars and use alterna-tive
sources of energy to power them. But
as long as we continue to drive more miles
in our cars, our transportation system
will remain addicted to oil and “ energy
independence” for the United States will
remain a distant dream.
America’s Car- Centered
Transportation System Does
an Increasingly Poor Job of
Getting People Where They
Need to Go
Gridlock on American highways is get-ting
worse, as more of us drive more cars
longer distances to get where we need
to go.
Traffic congestion has increased dra-matically
over the past three decades in
lockstep with the dramatic growth in
vehicle- miles traveled. According to the
Texas Transportation Institute ( TTI),
the average rush hour traveler in an urban
area spent 38 hours in traffic delays in
2005— a full day longer than in 1982.21
Traffic congestion is more than just
an annoyance; it also imposes large eco-nomic
costs. In 2005, traffic congestion
created an estimated $ 78 billion drain on
the economy in the form of 4.2 billion
lost hours of time and 2.9 billion gallons
of wasted fuel. 22
Traffic congestion costs America’s economy
$ 78 billion per year. Credit: Chris Schmelke,
istockphoto. com
America’s Transportation System Is in Trouble 13
In the past, transportation planners
believed that there was a simple solution
to traffic congestion: build more roads.
But recent research shows that adding
more lanes of highway has only a tem-porary
effect on congestion. Over time,
new highways generate new traffic, either
by sparking new development in far- flung
suburbs or by encouraging people who
had taken other forms of transportation
to drive instead. 23 The result is that the
highway becomes congested, typically
setting off another round of calls for
highway expansion.
Moreover, highways are a very costly
investment. The TTI estimates that, if
we were to rely on highway expansion
alone to keep congestion levels constant,
we would need to spend twice as much
on highway expansion projects as we do
today. The authors of the TTI’s 2007
report concluded that, because of the
expense and the increasing difficulty of
finding areas to expand road capacity, it
would be “ almost impossible to attempt
to maintain a constant congestion level
with road construction only.” 24
America’s Transportation
System Is a Key Contributor
to Global Warming
Global warming is real, is happening
now, and will have devastating effects
on the environment and our economy.
Transportation is the leading contributor
to global warming in the United States.
In 2005, the United States was re-sponsible
for approximately 22 percent of
the world’s emissions of carbon dioxide,
the leading global warming pollutant. 25
America’s transportation system pro-duced
one- third of those emissions. 26
Indeed, our transportation system
produced more carbon dioxide than the
entire economy of any other nation in the
world, other than China. 27 ( See Figure
3, next page.)
The U. S. Energy Information Ad-ministration
projects that America’s
transportation system will consume 24
percent more energy to power light- duty
vehicles by 2030; emissions of carbon
dioxide could be expected to increase at
a similar rate. 29 The most recent science,
meanwhile indicates that the world will
need to achieve dramatic reductions in
emissions— on the order of a 20 percent
reduction by 2020 and an 80 percent re-duction
by 2050 in the United States— in
order to avoid the worst impacts of global
warming. 30 Allowing for further increases
in emissions from transportation in the
United States would make it virtually
impossible for the world to achieve the
emission reductions needed to prevent
the worst impacts of global warming. 31
America’s Transportation
System Creates a Host of
Other Problems
Addiction to oil, growing congestion,
and global warming are among the big-gest
impacts of America’s car- centered
transportation system on the United
States and the world. But these are by no
means the only problems caused by our
current reliance on automobiles.
America’s transportation system
produces more global warming
pollution than the entire economy
of any nation other than China.
14 A Better Way to Go
America’s Transportation System
Is Extraordinarily Expensive
America’s local, state and federal gov-ernments
spend more than $ 150 billion
annually on expanding, maintaining and
operating the nation’s highway network. 32
But that figure doesn’t begin to account
for the large expenses American house-holds
face in owning and maintaining
vehicles. In 2005, American consumers
spent more than $ 900 billion on vehicles,
fuel and other vehicle- related expendi-tures.
33 Vehicle and related expenses ac-counted
for 17 percent of total household
expenditures— more than households
spent on food and clothing, combined. 34
( See Figure 4.)
The more automobile- dependent the
metropolitan area you live in, the more
money you are likely to spend on trans-portation.
Residents of areas with robust
transit networks spend approximately 10
percent of their income on transporta-tion,
compared to as much as 25 percent
in auto- dependent areas. 36
The more than $ 1 trillion spent by
households and governments on highways
and automobiles does not include hun-dreds
of billions more spent by businesses
on facilities for cars— particularly park-ing.
The annual cost of providing parking
has been estimated to be as high as $ 500
billion per year, including the value of the
land on which those parking lots sit. 37
America’s Transportation System
Harms Public Health and the
Environment
Accidents and Sedentary Lifestyles
Highway accidents claimed more than
43,000 lives in 2005 and injured more than
-
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
U. S. ( total)
China
U. S. transportation
Russia
Japan
U. S. gasoline ( cars and light trucks)
India
Germany
Canada
United Kingdom
Carbon Dioxide Emissions ( million metric tons)
Figure 3. Carbon Dioxide Emissions, 200428
Transportation is the second-largest
expense for American
households, ahead of food,
clothing and health care.
America’s Transportation System Is in Trouble 15
2.7 million Americans. 38 By contrast, only
185 people died in accidents with transit
vehicles. Each year, more Americans die
on highways than were killed in the entire
Korean War. 39 Motor vehicle accidents are
the leading cause of death for Americans
aged 5 to 44.40 Traffic accidents also
impose massive costs on the economy—
more than $ 300 billion per year. 41
Recent studies suggest that our auto-mobile-
dependent transportation system
also contributes to health problems such
as obesity and heart disease. 42 One study
found that a typical white male living in
a compact, mixed- use community weighs
on average 10 pounds less than a similar
male living in an auto- dependent subdivi-sion
where residents must drive to stores
and employment. 43 Another recent study
estimated that additional walking associ-ated
with taking public transit could save
$ 5,500 per person in medical costs over a
lifetime by reducing rates of obesity. 44
Air Pollution
Exhaust from cars and trucks is a leading
contributor to air pollution that harms
public health. More than 130 million
Americans live in counties where they
are exposed to dangerous levels of air
pollution. 45 Automobiles are major con-tributors
to ozone smog, while diesel
trucks are large sources of particulate
soot. A number of studies, including one
released jointly by the Johns Hopkins
School of Public Health and the Pew En-vironmental
Health Commission, have
found clear links between smog created
by car exhaust and increasing incidence
of asthma, especially in children. 46 The
American Lung Association similarly
connects transportation’s denigrating
effect on air quality to a number of other
public health risks, including chronic
pulmonary lung disease. 47
Water Pollution
Americans have long been aware of the
impact of cars on air quality, but fewer are
aware of the impact on America’s rivers,
streams and lakes. Rainwater that falls on
roads and parking lots often flows into
$-
$ 2,000
$ 4,000
$ 6,000
$ 8,000
$ 10,000
$ 12,000
$ 14,000
$ 16,000
Housing
Vehicle- related
Food
Personal insurance and pensions
Health care
Entertainment
Apparel and Services
All other
Average Household Expenditures
Figure 4. Average Household Expenditures, 200535
16 A Better Way to Go
waterways, either directly or via storm
drains, carrying with it oil, grease, road
salt, metals and other contaminants. 48
Runoff pollution is currently the number
one threat to water quality in the United
States, and runoff from transportation
facilities can make a significant contribu-tion
to local pollution problems. 49
Land and Wildlife
Highways and transportation infrastruc-ture
consume vast amounts of land.
Commercial parking lots cover be-tween
2,000 and 3,000 square miles of
the United States, an area larger than the
state of Delaware. 50 Road rights- of- way
cover an even greater area, approximately
20,000 square miles, almost twice the
land area of Massachusetts. 51 Automo-bile-
dependent cities devote three to
five times more land to transportation
than cities with robust transit networks
because transit can carry far more people
with far less dedication of land than
highways. 52
Highways and automobile infrastruc-ture
can destroy lands that are important
for wildlife, including wetlands. High-ways
also fragment wildlife habitat— cre-ating
barriers that make it difficult for
species to reach food, water or shelter.
America’s Transportation System
Leaves the Elderly, the Disabled
and the Poor Behind
There are millions of Americans for
whom owning and operating a car is
simply not an option. The elderly, the
disabled and children are among those
who cannot ( or, in some cases, should
not) operate motor vehicles. And for
many low- income households, the cost
of owning, operating, maintaining and
insuring a vehicle is simply too expensive
to sustain. In areas where transit service
does not exist or is inconvenient, the lack
of a vehicle can isolate “ transportation
disadvantaged” people— cutting them
off from jobs, educational opportuni-ties,
or important public services. With
the population of older Americans rising
dramatically as the “ Baby Boomers” near
retirement, the need for alternatives to
driving will grow.
America’s Transportation System
Encourages Wasteful Sprawl
America’s auto- centered transporta-tion
system and wasteful sprawl- style
development are intertwined. The more
we invest in new highways, the more we
open up formerly rural areas to sprawling
development. And the more we sprawl,
the more intense is the demand for new
highways. Sprawling development causes
an array of serious problems, ranging
from increased costs for public infra-structure
to the loss of important natural
and agricultural lands. 53
Public Policy Decisions
Have Driven America’s
Overreliance on Cars
America’s car- centered transportation
system is often thought to be the result of
individual tastes. But for at least the last
half- century, public policy has played a
major role in shifting the United States
toward a car- centered transportation
system.
Commercial parking lots cover
between 2,000 and 3,000
square miles of the United
States, an area larger than the
state of Delaware.
America’s Transportation System Is in Trouble 17
The decision by the federal govern-ment
in the 1950s to build the Interstate
highway system— considered by some
the largest public works project in histo-ry—
is among the most important public
policy decisions that shaped our current
transportation system. The Interstate
highway system cost more than $ 400
billion to build ( in 2001 dollars) and re-shaped
American life, opening vast areas
of previously rural land to suburbaniza-tion.
54 The decision to build more than
40,000 miles of Interstate highways also
imposed future costs on the American
people due to the ongoing obligation to
maintain those highways and construct
other infrastructure to connect sprawling
developments.
Public policy intervention on be-half
of the automobile doesn’t stop
with highway construction. Planning
and zoning regulations often mandate
how communities must accommodate
automobiles while discouraging other
transportation choices— requiring, for
example, minimum amounts of parking
as a precondition of development, or re-quiring
the separation of residential and
commercial uses into different sections of
a town, making walking between destina-tions
difficult or impossible. In addition,
all Americans pay for our car- centered
transportation system— whether they
drive or not— both directly through taxes
and indirectly by absorbing the costs
in pollution, accidents, congestion and
other negative “ externalities” imposed
by automobiles.
A New Transportation
Future for the 21st Century
Citizens, businesses and transportation
planners across the United States are
coming to the realization that a high-way-
centered transportation system no
longer suits the needs of the 21st century.
America can do better than a transporta-tion
system that reinforces our depen-dence
on foreign oil, accelerates global
warming, imposes significant damage on
public health and the environment, and
increasingly fails to do what it was built to
do: move Americans quickly, efficiently
and safely from place to place.
Instead, America should build toward a
cleaner, more efficient and more effective
transportation system— one that pro-vides
a range of transportation options
to Americans. Automobiles will have
an important role to play. But achieving
balance in our transportation system will
require new investments in transit and
other transportation alternatives.
Transit already delivers a host of
benefits for the United States— despite
a history of underinvestment in transit
services that continues, in many parts of
the country, to the present. The benefits
of transit service in America more than
outweigh its costs. And the benefits of
transit will only become greater in the
years to come.
18 A Better Way to Go
R ail, bus and other forms of transit
in the United States save oil, reduce
congestion, and curb emissions of
global warming pollution. At the same
time, transit provides a wealth of other
benefits to American communities.
Transit Provides a Wide
Range of Benefits
Transit riders aren’t the only people who
benefit from transit service. Indeed, tran-sit
benefits all Americans, even those who
never set foot on a bus or train.
Some of these benefits are obvious—
for example, reduced rush- hour traffic.
Others are less apparent. When a new
transit line helps revitalize a struggling
downtown area, or reduces health care
costs related to air pollution, all citizens
benefit.
Transit provides three types of ben-efits
to America: it enhances the mobility
of our population ( par­ticularly
those who
do not or cannot drive), it improves the
health and welfare our communities, and
it bolsters the efficiency of our transpor-tation
system. 55
Mobility Benefits
Transit provides basic mobility to thou-sands
of residents of the United States
who either do not own a car or are un-able
to drive. For these Americans— who
include many elderly people, low- income
families, teenagers and the disabled—
transit is a lifeline connect­ing
them to
education, jobs, medical care, shopping
and other important services.
For other Americans, transit represents
an easier, cheaper or less stressful way to
get to work, school or other destinations.
And for still others, transit represents a
safety net, providing transporta­tion
op-tions
during inclement weather or when
their vehicles are being repaired.
The Victoria Transport Policy Insti-tute,
a Canadian transportation think
tank, lists four categories of mobility
benefits provided by transit:
The Benefits of Transit for America
The Benefits of Transit for America 19
• User benefits – These are the direct
benefits enjoyed by transit riders. An
urban light- rail rider, for example,
might benefit by being able to get to
work more quickly, more pleasantly, or
more inexpensively than by driving.
• Equity benefits – These are benefits
provided to the “ transportation disad-vantaged”—
people who cannot afford
to own a car or cannot ( or should not)
drive. Transit ensures that the elderly,
the disabled, children, and other non-drivers
benefit from transportation
system investments and can fully par-ticipate
in the economy and society.
• Public service support – Transit
often plays an important role in the
delivery of important public services.
Transit networks may help bring
children to school or carry the elderly
to medical appointments. If transit
did not exist, social service providers
would need to invest in alternative
forms of transportation ( for example,
school buses or ambulance service) to
ensure that their clients could access
necessary services.
• Option value – Option value is the
value provided to people who might
use transit as a “ backup” form of trans-portation.
Even if a person rarely or
never rides transit, the availability of
transit service may provide benefits—
for example, by enabling them to avoid
the cost of owning or renting a second
car when their primary vehicle is in the
shop or otherwise unavailable. Transit
also provides option value to com-munities,
providing a valuable backup
in the case of a systematic failure of
other transportation systems, such as
major construction, major accidents
or large storms that make automobile
Tourism
Public
health
benefits
Land- use
impacts
Public
service
support
Option value
Monetary
savings
Energy
savings
Pollution
reductions
Congestion
mitigation
User benefits
Equity
benefits
Community
development
Mobility
benefits
Efficiency
benefits
Community
benefits
Figure 5. Benefits of Transit
20 A Better Way to Go
travel difficult or impossible. Transit
also plays an important role in many
communities’ disaster preparedness
plans.
Community Benefits
Transit can also deliver important
benefits to the entire community. The
existence of high- quality transit reduces
dependence on cars and makes more
compact development patterns possible.
In doing so, transit also increases the
value of nearby properties and can even
help increase tourism.
• Land- use impacts – Transit allows
for the cre­ation
of more compact com-munities
in which a greater variety of
locations can be reached by transit,
on foot or by bicycle. Transit uses far
less land than automobile transport
and requires far less space for park-ing.
56 As a result, transit can play an
important role in preventing suburban
sprawl- type development that eats up
open space and increases public costs
for infrastructure.
• Community development – Transit
is an impor­tant
asset in economic
development. Studies have shown
that land in immediate proximity of
transit stops is generally more valu­able
than land farther away. 57 Transit
can support compact commercial
districts, link workers with available
jobs, and enable people to save money
on transportation, thereby providing
them with more money to spend at
local businesses.
• Public health benefits – Transit
( particularly when provided by clean,
low- emitting vehicles) can reduce
emissions of pollutants that cause or
exacerbate a range of health prob-lems,
from asthma to heart disease.
Transit accommodates the creation of
communities where walking and bik­ing—
rather than sedentary, car- cen-tered
lifestyles— are more common.
• Tourism – Finally, some forms of
public trans­portation
can help to draw
tourists, giving a further boost to local
economies. Heritage trol­leys,
historic
railways and some ferry services are
tourist attractions in their own right.
In addition, transit can play an impor-tant
role in getting large numbers of
tourists to and from popular destina-tions,
festivals and sporting events.
Efficiency Benefits
Transit also makes our transportation
system more efficient— saving money,
saving energy and saving time. These
benefits include:
• Monetary savings – Transit service
can reduce a host of public and private
costs, including:
o The cost to individuals of owning
or operating a vehicle. Cities with
vigorous transit networks have
lower levels of car ownership, and
residents spend less on transporta-tion
than in other cities. 58
o The cost of expanded highways and
parking facili­ties.
It is a commonly
held myth that road users pay for
the cost of highway infrastructure
via user fees such as fuel taxes. In
fact, governments subsidize high-way
travel through expenditure of
general fund revenue and spending
on services such as highway law
enforcement. Meanwhile, private
businesses in auto- dependent areas
must pay to provide and maintain
large parking areas to accommodate
people who travel by car. Transit re-
The Benefits of Transit for America 21
duces these public and private costs
by reducing demand for highway
expansion and reducing the need
for large parking areas.
• Congestion mitigation – Transit
systems reduce the number of vehicles
that travel on highways, particularly
during peak hours, thus reducing
congestion. Highway congestion is
costly, wasting time, wasting fuel, and
causing in­creased
emissions of health-threatening
pollutants.
• Energy savings and pollution re-ductions
– Transit can contribute in a
number of ways to the goals of saving
energy and reducing pollution. Transit
often delivers energy savings direct-ly—
by replacing inefficient car trips
with trips on higher- efficiency transit
modes— and indirectly, by reducing
traffic congestion and encouraging
land- use patterns that lead to further
reductions in vehicle travel.
Quantifying the Benefits:
Oil Savings, Congestion
Relief and Global Warming
Emission Reductions
In this report, we focus on three im-portant
ways transit service benefits the
United States: by saving oil, reducing
traffic congestion, and curbing emissions
of pollutants that cause global warming.
The following analysis is based on 2006
data on transit use and energy consump-tion
by 503 transit systems that report
to the Federal Transit Administration’s
National Transit Database, as well as
congestion information from the Texas
Transportation Institute’s 2007 Urban
Mobility Report.
We focus in this analysis on transit
services that are provided by, or under
contract to, public agencies, and that are
designed to carry more than one person
per trip. In addition, we estimate energy
savings and global warming emission
reductions from transit services based
on three impacts of transit: the direct
replacement of automobile trips, reduc-tions
in congestion experienced by non-transit
users, and “ leveraged” energy
savings resulting from more compact
land- use patterns and reduced vehicle
ownership in communities with robust
transit networks.
A full and detailed discussion of the
methods we used in this analysis can be
found in the “ Methodology and Tech-nical
Discussion” in Appendix A of this
report. Detailed data on transit energy
savings and global warming emission
reductions— broken down by state, met-ropolitan
area, and transit agency— can
be found in Appendix B.
Transit Reduces Oil Consumption
Transit service significantly reduces the
nation’s consumption of fossil fuels. In
2006, transit saved more than 3.4 bil-lion
gallons of gasoline in the United
States— enough to fuel 5.8 million cars
for a year. 59 In monetary terms, public
transit saved Americans more than $ 9
billion that would have been spent on
gasoline.
Transit’s oil conservation benefits are
not evenly distributed across the coun-try.
The New York City metropolitan
In 2006, transit saved enough
gasoline to fuel 5.8 million cars
for a year, averting $ 9 billion in
spending on gasoline.
22 A Better Way to Go
area— with its massive transit infra-structure
and dense population— ac-counts
for approximately half of the oil
savings delivered by transit. The top
10 metropolitan areas accounted for 91
percent of the nation’s oil savings from
transit. ( See Table 1.)
Comparing Estimates of Gasoline and
Global Warming Pollution Savings from Transit
T he estimates of gasoline savings and global warming emission reductions
presented in this report are significantly higher than those in recently pub-lished
estimates. Separate reports produced in 2007 estimated that transit saves
approximately 1.4 billion gallons of gasoline per year in the United States and
reduces global warming pollution by approximately 6.9 million metric tons. 60
By contrast, in this study we estimate gasoline savings of 3.4 billion gallons per
year and global warming pollution reductions of 25.8 million metric tons of
carbon dioxide per year.
There are several important differences in assumptions and methodology
between the earlier studies and this report that result in the greater savings
reported here.
1) The analysis in this report does not include demand response ( or “ paratransit”)
service. Generally speaking, demand response service – which tends to use
passenger vans to transport small numbers of riders on non- fixed routes – is
designed to provide basic mobility to the elderly and disabled, not to improve
the efficiency of the transportation system. As a result, these services fre-quently
do not result in net energy savings or emission reductions. Including
these services in the analysis would mask the significant benefits delivered by
other, mainly fixed- route transit services.
2) This report includes a conservative estimate of oil savings and emission reduc-tions
from changes in land- use and vehicle ownership patterns that accompany
transit networks. Both the ICF International study of gasoline savings and
the SAIC analysis of global warming pollution reductions acknowledge that
transit also delivers these “ leveraged” reductions in vehicle travel, but neither
study includes an estimate of these reductions. 61
3) The SAIC estimate of global warming pollution reductions from transit uses
a national average emission factor for emissions from generation of electricity,
a prime source for propulsion of transit systems. However, three- quarters of
the electricity used in America’s transit systems is consumed in New England,
the Middle Atlantic region, and the Pacific coast states – each of which have
electric grids that are less carbon- intensive than the national average. This
analysis uses regional estimates of emissions from electricity generation that
reflect these differences.
The Benefits of Transit for America 23
Table 1. Top 10 Metropolitan Areas in Terms of Gallons of Gasoline Saved and
Avoided Gasoline Expenditures from Transit Service
Urban area Oil savings Gasoline cost savings
( million gallons) ( million dollars)
New York- Newark, NY- NJ- CT 1,772 $ 4,639
Chicago, IL- IN 276 $ 723
Washington, DC- VA- MD 254 $ 666
San Francisco- Oakland, CA 243 $ 637
Los Angeles- Long Beach- Santa Ana, CA 168 $ 439
Boston, MA- NH- RI 154 $ 403
Philadelphia, PA- NJ- DE- MD 116 $ 303
Atlanta, GA 88 $ 230
San Diego, CA 44 $ 116
Baltimore, MD 36 $ 94
Transit Reduces Global Warming
Pollution
Transit reduced global warming pollution
by nearly 26 million metric tons nation-wide
in 2006— the equivalent of taking
4.9 million cars off the road. 62 Transit
contributes to reducing global warming
emissions in 28 states and the District of
Columbia. The heavy use of carbon- in-tensive
diesel fuel in many transit vehicles
erodes the global warming benefits of
transit in some cases, while the use of
electricity and alternative fuels such as
natural gas can boost the global warming
benefits of other transit systems.
As with oil savings, New York state
led the way in reducing global warm-ing
emissions, avoiding 11.8 million
metric tons of carbon dioxide pollution
in 2006— more carbon dioxide than was
produced by the entire economies of
Rhode Island, Vermont, or the District
of Columbia in 2004.63 ( See Table 2.)
Why Do the Rankings for Oil Savings and
Global Warming Pollution Reductions Differ?
O ne key difference between transit vehicles and cars is that many transit ve-hicles
— particularly buses and trains – use diesel fuel rather than gasoline.
Diesel engines are typically more fuel- efficient than gasoline engines, and there-fore
get more work done with less fuel, contributing to the oil- saving benefits of
transit. However, diesel fuel also contains more carbon per gallon than gasoline,
meaning that diesel engines are less effective at reducing emissions of carbon
dioxide than they are at conserving oil. Transit agencies can further reduce their
carbon dioxide emissions by switching to lower- carbon fuels such as natural gas
and ( in some parts of the country) electricity.
24 A Better Way to Go
Transit Reduces Traffic Congestion,
Saving Time and Money
Transit plays a key role in keeping cars off
of congested roads, particularly during
peak travel periods.
According to the Texas Transporta-tion
Institute’s 2007 Annual Urban Mobil-ity
Report, over 51 billion passenger miles
were traveled on public transit in 2005,
which prevented 541 million hours of
delay— or more than 61,700 person- years
of sitting in traffic. 64 This amounted to
a total of $ 10.2 billion in congestion
costs saved by public transportation in
2005.65 Were transit service not available,
drivers in the 85 urban areas studied by
TTI would have spent approximately 13
percent more time in traffic. 66
In the New York City metropolitan
area alone, public transit avoids more
than 216 million hours of traffic delay
— the equivalent of more than 24,000
person- years of sitting in traffic.
Understanding Transit’s
Benefits: Who Gains
and Why?
States that Invest More in Transit
Reap Greater Benefits
Not every city or state achieves large
benefits from transit service. There are
many reasons why states might vary in
the benefits they derive from local transit
systems. But, in general, states that invest
in transit reap rewards. Those that don’t,
miss out. And those that invest more reap
greater rewards.
Table 2. Top 10 States – Carbon Dioxide
Emissions Reductions from Transit
State Carbon dioxide
emission reductions
( thousand metric tons)
NY 11,796
CA 3,597
IL 1,975
NJ 1,895
MA 1,191
MD 960
PA 755
GA 664
VA 650
DC 532
Table 3. Increased Hours of Delay if Public Transit Were Eliminated67
Urban Area Increased Hours of Delay if Public Transit
Were Eliminated ( thousand hours)
New York- Newark NY- NJ- CT 216,431
Chicago IL- IN 39,554
Los Angeles- Long Beach- Santa Ana CA 28,494
San Francisco- Oakland CA 26,263
Washington DC- VA- MD 25,655
Boston MA- NH- RI 21,441
Philadelphia PA- NJ- DE- MD 19,155
Seattle WA 12,661
Atlanta GA 12,542
The Benefits of Transit for America 25
States vary widely in the amount of
public resources ( not including fares) that
they invest in transit. But their level of
investment in transit generally correlates
with the amount of benefits they receive.
Figure 6 below shows the variation in oil
savings from transit during 2006 by level
of transit spending in 2004, the most
recent year for which data are available.
( California and New York are excluded
from the graph to allow other states to
be seen on a meaningful scale.)
The data in Figure 6 are imperfect
indicators of the connection between
transit spending and benefits for two
reasons. First, some states ( marked in
the chart by gray diamonds) share tran-sit
agencies with neighboring states.
The estimates of oil savings are split
between states based on ridership, but
the spending estimates are attributed to
the state in which the transit agency is
headquartered. As a result, some states’
transit systems may receive credit for oil
savings that occur in neighboring states,
or be assigned costs for providing transit
service to their neighbors. Second, since
the figure includes both capital and
operating spending, states that are in
the midst of a major capital investment
campaign ( such as Washington) will appear
Figure 6. Oil Savings from Transit in 2006 versus Transit Spending in 2004 by State
( New York and California Excluded) 68
The 10 states that made the
greatest investments in transit
accounted for 85 percent of the
oil savings delivered by transit in
the United States.
$ 0.0
$ 0.5
$ 1.0
$ 1.5
$ 2.0
$ 2.5
- 10.0 90.0 190.0 290.0
Oil Savings in Million Gallons 2006
Total Spending on Transit 2004 ( Billions)
Washington state
26 A Better Way to Go
to be spending more and saving less than
other states, since the investments that
are being made today will not result in
oil savings until future years.
In general, however, states that invest
more in transit— regardless of the source
of that funding— tend to reap greater
benefits. Indeed, the 10 states that made
the greatest investments in transit in
2004 accounted for approximately 75
percent of transit spending nationwide
and 85 percent of the oil savings delivered
by transit service in the United States in
2006.
Additional evidence for the benefits of
transit comes from the 14 cities— from
the Rust Belt to the Sun Belt— that have
invested in new light rail systems over the
past several decades.
Cities That Have Recently
Expanded Transit Are Reaping
the Benefits
The early 1980s saw the beginning of
a building boom of light rail transit
systems across the United States. Since
1980, 14 cities have built wholly new light
rail transit systems, while several other
cities have extended previously existing
systems or initiated service on streetcars
or “ heritage trolleys” that serve down-town
areas. The 14 cities with new light
rail systems saved more than 200 million
gallons of gasoline in 2006 and averted
more than 1.6 million metric tons of car-bon
dioxide pollution. ( See Figure 7.) This
figure underestimates oil savings and
emission reductions because it excludes
transit agencies with light rail service prior
to 1980, even if service has been expanded
significantly since that time. 69
At the same time, light rail develop-ment
in many of these cities has taken
cars off the road, reducing congestion
pressure, while sparking “ transit- ori-ented”
development characterized by
compact areas of shops and residences
that are easily navigated on foot, by bike,
or via transit. Cities such as Portland,
Oregon, are using transit and transit-oriented
development to promote a more
efficient and sustainable alternative to
traditional suburban sprawl. ( See “ Tran-sit
and Land- Use Planning in Portland,
Oregon,” page 54.)
The experiences of the new light rail
cities demonstrates that transit works in
many kinds of cities— not just densely
populated, congested cities such as New
York, but also rapidly growing, tradition-ally
automobile- dependent cities such as
Dallas and Salt Lake City. Moreover, the
benefits enjoyed by these cities are just
the tip of the iceberg of what is achiev-able.
Many of these light rail systems are
relatively immature— consisting of one
or two lines that serve a limited number
of destinations. As these cities expand
their light rail networks— and most of
them have expansion projects either
underway or in the early stages of devel-opment—
they will succeed in attracting
even more riders, leading to even greater
benefits in the years to come.
Sacramento is one of many cities that have built
light rail transit systems in recent years. Credit:
istockphoto. com
The Benefits of Transit for America 27
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Los Angeles Metro
San Diego Trolley
Portland, Ore., TriMet
Dallas DART
St. Louis METRO
Salt Lake City UTA TRAX
Sacramento RT
Denver RTD
Minn.- St. Paul Metro
San Jose VTA
Maryland MTA
Houston Metro
Buffalo NFT Metro
Sound Transit Tacoma Link
Oil Savings ( million gallons)
Figure 7. Gasoline Savings in 2006 from Light Rail Systems Built Since 1980 ( Heritage
Trolleys Excluded)
Streetcars and Heritage Trolleys
S treetcars and trolleys are often considered vestiges of an earlier era of
transit. But many cities are finding that streetcars and refurbished “ heri-tage”
trolleys can play an important role in revitalizing urban areas in the 21st
century.
Streetcars serve a different purpose than other forms of transit – rather than
bringing large numbers of commuters to an urban area, they help travelers make
their way around and through urban areas. Streetcars typically travel on short
lines, at low speeds, and with frequent stops. 70 Downtown streetcar and trolley
lines are urban amenities that help pedestrians navigate urban areas quickly
and conveniently.
In 2000, Portland, Oregon, and Kenosha, Wisconsin, became the first Ameri-can
cities to revive or rebuild dormant streetcar lines. In Portland, more than
7,000 new housing units have been built within three blocks of the streetcar line
since it was announced a decade ago. And in Little Rock, Arkansas, the city’s
streetcar line has been a factor in more than $ 300 million in new construction
that has taken place in the city since the line was built. 71
Streetcar projects are also attractive to many cities because they are relatively
inexpensive— costing about one- third as much as light rail per mile. 72
28 A Better Way to Go
Rail Systems Deliver the Bulk of
Energy Savings, But Bus Services
Make Important Contributions
Rail transit is responsible for the major-ity
of oil and global warming emission
savings from transit in the United States.
“ Heavy rail” systems— which include
subways and above- ground rail networks
with subway- like service— accounted for
nearly two- thirds of the oil savings de-livered
by transit nationwide. Commuter
rail and light rail systems also accounted
for significant oil savings.
While New York City’s subway system
was responsible for a large share of the
savings delivered by heavy rail systems,
subways in Washington, D. C., San
Francisco- Oakland, Chicago, Boston,
Atlanta and Philadelphia also saved sig-nificant
amounts of oil ( and, by extension,
achieved significant reductions in global
warming pollutant emissions.) ( See Table
4.) In part, the high level of savings from
rail systems is due to the documented
link between the presence of heavy and
light rail service and “ leveraged” reduc-tions
in vehicle travel— those that result
from more compact land- use patterns and
reductions in vehicle ownership made
possible by transit. In part, it is due to
the fact that subway service is generally
electrified, very efficient in moving large
numbers of people in densely populated
areas, and does not consume oil.
The list of major heavy rail agen-cies
includes a mix of older, established
subway networks with systems that have
been built from the 1970s onward, such
as those in the San Francisco Bay area,
Atlanta, Los Angeles and Miami— once
again demonstrating that cities that
Table 4. Oil Savings from Top 10 Heavy Rail Transit Systems, 2006
Heavy Rail Agency Oil Gasoline Cost
Savings Savings
( million gallons) ( million dollars)
MTA New York City Transit 1,242.1 $ 3,252
Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority ( Metro) 239.1 $ 626
San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District ( BART) 199.3 $ 522
Chicago Transit Authority ( CTA) 173.3 $ 454
Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority ( MBTA) 81.8 $ 214
Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority ( MARTA) 74.9 $ 196
Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation
Authority ( SEPTA) 56.1 $ 147
Port Authority Trans- Hudson Corporation ( PATH) 49.6 $ 130
Los Angeles County Metropolitan
Transportation Authority ( L. A. Metro) 30.5 $ 80
Miami- Dade Transit ( Metrorail) 20.0 $ 52
Commuter rail trains, like this one in the Boston
area, carry suburban commuters quickly and ef-ficiently
to downtown jobs.
The Benefits of Transit for America 29
have invested in transit service in recent
years are reaping the benefits of that
decision.
Bus transit services— while much more
extensive in the United States— do not
provide the same level of oil savings or
global warming emission reductions. In
some cities, however, particularly those
without rail transit, buses do play an im-portant
role in improving the efficiency
of the transportation system and saving
energy. ( See Table 5.)
The role provided by bus service varies
considerably in different circumstances.
In some areas, bus networks provide
express service to suburban areas similar
in many ways to commuter rail. In oth-ers,
they are used as part of “ bus rapid
Table 5. Oil Savings from Top 10 Bus Systems, 2006
Bus Agency Oil Gasoline Cost
Savings Savings
( million gallons) ( million dollars)
Los Angeles County Metropolitan
Transportation Authority ( L. A. Metro) 56.1 $ 146.8
MTA New York City Transit 39.2 $ 102.7
New Jersey Transit Corporation 17.3 $ 45.3
Metro Transit ( Minnesota- St. Paul) 11.7 $ 30.7
King County Department of Transportation -
Metro Transit Division 9.3 $ 24.4
Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority 9.3 $ 24.4
Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County, Texas 8.7 $ 22.8
Academy Lines, Inc. ( NJ) 8.4 $ 22.1
City and County of Honolulu Department of
Transportation Services 8.0 $ 21.1
Chicago Transit Authority 7.9 $ 20.8
Efficient bus rapid transit systems, like the EmX system in Eugene, Oregon, have provided a low- cost
option for transit expansion in cities both large and small. Credit: Lane Transit District
30 A Better Way to Go
Table 6. Oil Savings from Top 10 Commuter Rail Systems
Commuter Rail Agency Oil Gasoline Cost
Savings Savings
( million gallons) ( million dollars)
MTA Long Island Rail Road 134 $ 350
New Jersey Transit Corporation ( NJ Transit) 123 $ 321
Metro- North Commuter Railroad Company 107 $ 281
Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter
Railroad Corporation ( Metra) 82 $ 216
Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority ( MBTA) 36 $ 94
Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority ( SEPTA) 31 $ 82
Southern California Regional Rail Authority ( Metrolink) 22 $ 58
Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board ( Caltrain) 14 $ 36
Maryland Transit Administration ( MARC) 13 $ 34
Northern Indiana Commuter Transportation
District ( South Shore Line) 8 $ 20
transit” systems similar to light rail. In
still other areas, buses play an important
role as “ feeders” to light rail and heavy
rail networks. And in still other areas,
buses serve as a basic mobility lifeline
for the poor, the elderly, the disabled
and other transit- dependent populations.
Larger metropolitan areas may have bus
services that serve all of these functions,
while small cities may operate skeletal
bus services that provide for basic mobil-ity
only.
Bus service nationwide does contrib-ute
to energy savings, global warming
emission reductions and congestion
relief— particularly in congested urban
corridors. The scale of those benefits
varies from place to place depending on
the efficiency of bus services and their
role within a community’s transportation
system. In some locations, buses provide
valuable community benefits— such as
basic mobility— even if they do not di-rectly
contribute to oil savings or emis-sion
reductions.
Suburban Transit Contributes
Important Benefits
Transit services that operate in suburban
areas can also deliver important benefits.
The largest benefits come from com-muter
rail services that bring commuters
from suburban areas into central cities.
The commuter rail systems that deliver
the greatest oil savings are those serv-ing
the nation’s busiest cities and urban
corridors: New York City, Chicago,
Philadelphia, Boston, Los Angeles, the
Bay Area, and the Baltimore- Washington
corridor. ( See Table 6.)
Over the last several decades, however,
sprawling development patterns have
made the outskirts of many American
cities increasingly unfriendly to tradi-tional
modes of transit. Transit opera-tors
have experimented with a variety of
approaches to provide transportation
alternatives to residents of those areas,
ranging from shuttle bus services link-ing
residential areas with transit stops to
vanpool services.
The Benefits of Transit for America 31
Vanpools are a non- traditional form of
transit service, in which a transit agency
supplies a van to a group of commuters
who then use it to commute to and from
work. Vanpool participants typically pay
a flat monthly fare for the service, with
the volunteer driver ( a vanpool member)
receiving a discount. Vanpools have
proven to be a successful way to bring
transit to difficult- to- serve suburb- to-suburb
commutes.
While vanpools do not provide as
much total oil savings as bus and rail
systems, part of the reason is that they
serve far fewer people. On a per- passen-ger
basis, however, vanpool programs are
very effective at conserving oil. Vanpool
networks in San Diego and Salt Lake
City save the most oil, while three van-pool
agencies in Washington state appear
within the top 10.
Of the 51 vanpool programs reporting
to the National Transit Database, all 51
provided significant savings in oil.
Small Transit Agencies Provide
Benefits As Well
Transit agencies serving small metro-politan
areas often do not have the same
advantages as those serving larger metro-politan
areas. The downtown areas they
serve are less dense with jobs than those
of major urban areas, traffic conges-tion—
which is a major motivating factor
for many people to choose transit— is
usually less severe, and transit agencies
may not be as well funded as those in
larger cities.
Yet, there are many examples of small
transit agencies that deliver significant
oil savings and carbon dioxide emission
reductions. Table 8 below shows the top
15 urbanized areas for oil savings from
transit among those with a population of
less than 500,000. Of these 15 urbanized
areas, six are in California, two are in
Washington state, and four others ( Eu-gene,
Syracuse, State College and South
Bend) are areas with major universities.
Table 7. Oil Savings from Top 10 Vanpool Systems, 2006
Vanpool Agency State Oil Gasoline
Savings Cost Savings
( million gallons) ( million dollars)
San Diego Association of Governments CA 3.2 $ 8.3
Utah Transit Authority UT 2.0 $ 5.2
Metropolitan Transit Authority of
Harris County, Texas TX 1.8 $ 4.7
King County Department of Transportation -
Metro Transit Division WA 1.3 $ 3.4
Pace - Suburban Bus Division IL 1.0 $ 2.6
Pierce County Transportation Benefit
Area Authority WA 0.9 $ 2.4
Phoenix - VPSI, Inc. AZ 0.9 $ 2.3
Greater Hartford Ridesharing Corporation -
The Rideshare Company CT 0.8 $ 2.2
New Jersey Transit Corporation NJ 0.8 $ 2.1
Ben Franklin Transit WA 0.7 $ 1.9
32 A Better Way to Go
Summary
Without transit service, America would
find itself more dependent on foreign oil,
with more traffic congestion, and emit-ting
even more global warming pollution
than we do today. Cities and states that
have invested in rail, clean buses and
other forms of public transportation are
reaping the benefits of those investments.
Yet, as will be discussed in the next sec-tion,
America has historically invested
less in transit than we should, missing
opportunities to address the nation’s
largest challenges.
Table 8. Top 15 Urbanized Areas for Oil Savings, Population Under 500,000
Urban Area Gasoline Carbon Dioxide
Oil Cost Emission
Savings Savings Reductions
( million gallons) ( million dollars) ( thousand metric tons)
Stockton, CA 1.46 $ 3.8 10.7
Bakersfield, CA 0.86 $ 2.3 - 1.7
Olympia- Lacey, WA 0.85 $ 2.2 2.5
Kennewick- Richland, WA 0.85 $ 2.2 6.8
Kingston, NY 0.82 $ 2.1 6.8
Santa Clarita, CA 0.75 $ 2.0 4.1
Indio- Cathedral City- Palm Springs, CA 0.71 $ 1.9 1.1
Lancaster- Palmdale, CA 0.66 $ 1.7 3.4
Syracuse, NY 0.65 $ 1.7 - 3.4
Portland, ME 0.57 $ 1.5 1.3
Eugene, OR 0.56 $ 1.5 3.9
Santa Barbara, CA 0.45 $ 1.2 3.1
State College, PA 0.41 $ 1.1 0.3
South Bend, IN- MI 0.40 $ 1.1 - 0.8
Poughkeepsie- Newburgh, NY 0.37 $ 1.0 2.5
America’s Underinvestment in Transit 33
A merica’s current transit services
deliver significant reductions in oil
consumption and global warming
pollution while curbing traffic conges-tion
and providing a host of other benefits
to American communities. The large
benefits America receives from transit are
even more surprising given that, in many
parts of the country, transit receives only
marginal levels of public support.
Investing in transit makes economic
sense, yielding ( conservatively) about
two dollars in benefits for every dollar of
investment. America’s underinvestment
in transit has deep roots in our nation’s
history and has adverse consequences
for our economy, environment and com-munities.
Despite growing demand for
alternatives to automobile travel across
the country, current levels of transit in-vestment
are insufficient to meet transit’s
full potential.
Tallying the Dividends from
America’s Investment in
Transit
America’s current investments in transit
more than pay for themselves. As noted
above, transit provides a range of benefits
to American communities. A conserva-tive
count includes the following:
• Reduced vehicle expenses: People
who live in cities with robust transit
networks experience reduced costs for
owning and maintaining vehicles. A
2004 study estimated the consumer
cost savings in cities with large rail
transit systems to be $ 22.6 billion per
year. 73 In addition, the analysis con-ducted
for this report estimates that
transit services in other cities saves
$ 1.6 billion in avoided gasoline expen-ditures,
leading to aggregate savings
America’s Underinvestment
in Transit
34 A Better Way to Go
of at least $ 24.2 billion in avoided
vehicle expenses. These figures likely
understate the actual present benefits
given the significantly higher cost of
gasoline.
• Avoided traffic congestion: The
Texas Transportation Institute esti-mates
that transit service in the 85
U. S. metropolitan areas it studied
saved approximately $ 9.6 billion in
avoided congestion costs, including
the cost of wasted fuel. 74 This figure
understates the savings because it
does not include any congestion relief
provided by transit in other cities.
• Carbon dioxide emission savings:
Currently, there is no cost to emitting
carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
But that may change soon as the U. S.
Congress and various states consider
proposals to put a price tag on carbon
dioxide emissions. Assuming a cost
per ton of carbon dioxide of $ 25 per
metric ton— approximately the cur-rent
cost of carbon dioxide emissions
in Europe’s emission trading program
— transit service saved approximately
$ 575 million worth of carbon dioxide
pollution in 2006.75
• Reduced road expenditures. Rail
transit is estimated to avoid approxi-mately
$ 8 billion per year in expendi-tures
in road facilities. 76
• Reduced private and public costs for
providing parking, which amount to
approximately $ 12.1 billion per year. 77
• Reduced costs from traffic acci-dents,
which amount to approximately
$ 5.6 billion per year from rail transit
alone. 78
Totaling these benefits leads to an
estimate of transit cost savings of ap-proximately
$ 60.1 billion per year. This
is a very conservative estimate of transit
benefits. For one thing, several of the cost
savings described above only relate to rail
transit— bus, vanpool and other modes
of transit likely deliver even greater
savings for which data are unavailable.
Second, costs for several of the items
mentioned above— including vehicle
fuel and construction materials— have
increased sharply in recent years. Finally,
and most importantly, this estimate does
not include the value of several important
benefits delivered by transit, including:
• Reduced impact of congestion on
commercial vehicles.
• Increased access to jobs and workers.
• Increased mobility for children, the
elderly and the disabled.
• Reduced health costs from air pol-lution-
related illnesses and, possibly,
obesity and heart disease.
• Reduced costs for providing public
services due to the more compact
land- use patterns that transit makes
possible.
• Local economic stimulus from jobs,
increased investment near transit and
tourism.
• Emergency response capability and “ op-tion”
value for occasional transit users.
Transit provides at least $ 60 billion in public benefits annually,
compared to just under $ 31 billion in public investment.
America’s Underinvestment in Transit 35
America’s total public investment in
transit— including all capital expendi-tures
( which includes investments in
systems that have not yet begun opera-tion
and are not yet yielding benefits),
and all federal, state, local and other
contributions, but not including fares
paid by transit riders— amounted to ap-proximately
$ 30.9 billion in 2005.79 As a
result, each dollar America invests in
transit yields approximately two dollars
in cost savings.
In addition to providing direct eco-nomic
benefits, investments in transit
also create more jobs than investments
in highways. The Surface Transportation
Policy Project estimates that investments
in transit produce 19 percent more jobs
than an equivalent investment in new
road and bridge projects. 80
Investments in transit produce
19 percent more jobs than
equivalent investments in new
road and bridge projects.
Dollar- for- dollar, transit is a wise in-vestment
for the United States. Indeed,
with the growing need for America to
address its addiction to oil and the con-tribution
it makes to global warming,
combined with rising congestion on our
highways, transit investments will make
increasing sense in years to come.
America’s History of
Underinvestment in Transit
America’s underinvestment in transit has
deep roots in the nation’s history. The
United States has historically followed
different models for investing in transit
and highways. In the mid- 20th century,
the nation engaged in a highway building
spree that was matched by widespread
disinvestment in transit infrastructure.
The modest increase in investment in
transit that has occurred over the last
several decades has not been enough to
make up for the earlier shortfall.
In the early 20th century, most Ameri-can
cities had extensive streetcar net-works,
operated by private companies,
which negotiated franchise agreements
with local governments in order to pro-vide
streetcar service along public rights-of-
way. Later, as buses came to replace
streetcars, transit typically remained a
privately owned and operated service.
Local and state governments sometimes
invested public resources for particularly
important transit projects— such as the
construction of subways in cities such as
Boston and New York. But, for the most
Table 9. Estimated Annual Cost Savings from Transit ( billion dollars)
Reduced consumer transportation expenditures $ 24.2
Avoided congestion $ 9.6
Carbon dioxide emission reductions $ 0.6
Reduced road expenditures $ 8.0
Reduced parking expenditures $ 12.1
Reduced accidents $ 5.6
TOTAL $ 60.1
36 A Better Way to Go
part, government had a limited role in
the development and financing of transit
systems.
By contrast, government played an
early and active role in the construc-tion
of the nation’s highway system and
promoting automobile travel. Indeed,
the construction and maintenance of
highways has largely been seen as a gov-ernment
enterprise since the beginning
of the 20th century. In addition to state
and local capital investment in highway
improvements, the federal government
has played a substantial role in building
highways since the 1910s.
By the middle of the 20th century,
federal and state governments were in-vesting
massive amounts of capital in the
construction of new highways, including
the Interstate highway system. The Inter-state
system was built using a 90: 10 fed-eral-
to- state match. In other words, for
every 10 cents state governments invested
in Interstate highways, 90 cents was in-vested
by the federal government.
Transit, on the other hand, did not
benefit from such state or federal largesse.
Until the early 1960s ( with a brief excep-tion
during the Great Depression) the
federal government provided no capital
or operating assistance to transit systems.
And it wasn’t until the early 1970s that
transit received substantial capital invest-ment
from the federal government.
The result was a capital investment
“ hole” from which transit is still trying
Transit vs. Highway “ Subsidies”
One of the most persistent myths of transportation finance is that transit us-ers
are subsidized, while highway users pay their own way through fuel taxes
and other fees on motor vehicles. In fact, both transit riders and drivers are
subsidized, with all taxpayers, even non- drivers, subsidizing drivers to the tune
of billions of dollars a year. In 2005, fed­eral,
state and local governments spent
more than $ 39 billion in non- user fee revenue on highways, accounting for more
than one- quarter of total spending. 81 According to one recent study, fees and
taxes paid by drivers cover only 74 to 93 percent of the annual governmental
investment in highways. 82
Even if drivers were to pay the full cost of government’s investment in high-ways,
they would not come close to paying for the costs driving imposes on
other members of society. These “ externalities” – including health care costs
from air pollution and highway accidents, congestion, and noise— represent a
major portion of the cost of driving, and are paid for by the rest of society, not
drivers. One recent study estimated the cost of these negative impacts at more
than $ 2 per gallon of gasoline. 83
Most other industrialized countries require drivers to pay fuel taxes that
are significantly higher than the cost of providing highway infrastructure.
Every European nation except Hungary charges fuel taxes, tolls and user fees
that more than cover the cost of providing highways, and in several countries
highway users pay enough to cover the social costs of driving as well. 84
America’s Underinvestment in Transit 37
$ 2,000,000
$ 2,500,000
$ 3,000,000
$ 3,500,000
ment ( million 2006 dollars)
$ 0
$ 500,000
$ 1,000,000
$ 1,500,000
1956
1958
1960
1962
1964
1966
1968
1970
1972
1974
1976
1977
1979
1981
1983
1985
1987
1989
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
2003
Cumulative Capital Investm
Highways
Transit
to emerge. Figure 8 shows the cumulative
local, state and federal capital investment
in highways and transit from 1956 to the
present. Between 1956 and 1968, govern-ments
at all levels invested 40 times more
capital funds in highways than they did in
transit service. And, while investment in
transit has begun to catch up, highways
have still received over nine times more
cumulative investment since 1956.85
It was not until the enactment of the
Intermodal Surface Transportation Ef-ficiency
Act ( ISTEA) in 1991 that states
were given the flexibility to use highway
funds for transit projects— no matter how
beneficial earlier transit projects might
have been in reducing congestion on
highways. Since the early 1990s, federal
investment in transit has increased
substantially, doubling ( in nominal
terms) between 1985 and 2005 to ap-proximately
$ 7 billion per year. 87
The federal government has
invested nine times more
in highways than in transit
since the late 1950s. State
governments currently spend
13 times more on highways
than on transit.
Figure 8. Cumulative Government Capital Investment in Transit and Highways Since
1956 ( 2006 dollars) 86
38 A Better Way to Go
However, the recent renewed fed-eral
investment in transit still pales in
comparison with the annual $ 33 billion
federal investment in highways. 88 And it
has not been enough to compensate for
decades of underinvestment in transit.
The differential in direct government
capital investment between highways
and transit is only the tip of the iceberg
when comparing the difference in capital
investment between these modes in the
United States over the last half century.
Government investment in highways has
leveraged even greater capital expenses
by businesses and individuals. Businesses
— motivated either by the desire to at-tract
customers and workers or by legal
requirements— have invested hundreds
of billions of dollars to provide parking
for vehicles. And while the figures cited
above for transit capital investments
include the cost of transit vehicles, they
do not include the trillions of dollars
Americans have invested in the purchase
and upkeep of private cars and trucks.
Funding Transit Today:
Federal and State Efforts
Fall Short
The federal government provides signifi-cantly
more resources for transit than it
did a few decades ago, and some states
have followed suit by making substan-tial
investments in transit. But transit
projects still face a more difficult path
to funding— at both the federal and
the state level— than projects to expand
highway capacity.
$ 0
$ 5,000
$ 10,000
$ 15,000
$ 20,000
$ 25,000
$ 30,000
$ 35,000
$ 40,000
$ 45,000
$ 50,000
1956
1958
1960
1962
1964
1966
1968
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
Federal Capital Spending ( million 2006 dollars)
Highways
Transit
Figure 9. Annual Federal Capital Investment in Highways and Transit
America’s Underinvestment in Transit 39
Federal Funding:
Smooth Sailing for Highways,
High Hurdles for Transit
The federal government funds transit
and highway expansion projects in very
different ways. The result is a bias in fed-eral
policy that makes it harder for cities
and states to move forward with transit
projects than to move forward with pro-posals
for new or expanded highways.
Federal highway funds are allocated
to states based on funding formulas.
Once a state has received funding, it may
spend the money on whatever projects it
chooses, so long as they meet federal en-vironmental
and engineering guidelines
and planning requirements. In other
words, if a state decides to build a highway
and use federal money to do so, it can go
ahead with the project with ( virtually)
no questions asked from federal officials.
Highway projects receive an 80- 20 fed-eral
to state match, with 80 cents of every
dollar spent on a project paid for by the
federal government.
The federal government handles
proposals for new transit projects very
differently. States and transit agencies
do receive some formula funding, but
the amount of funding is typically not
large enough to finance the construc-tion
of entirely new or expanded transit
systems. 89 The primary source of fund-ing
for new “ fixed guideway” ( rail or bus
rapid transit) transit projects is known
as the New Starts program. New Starts
is a “ discretionary” program— in other
words, the Federal Transit Administra-tion,
not states, has final discretion over
which projects receive funds.
To receive New Starts funding, tran-sit
projects must go through a rigorous
process in competition with proposed
projects from around the country. New
transit projects must progress through a
regional review of alternatives, develop
preliminary engineering plans, and meet
FTA’s approval for final design before ap-proval
is given and the project is recom-mended
for a multi- year funding grant
agreement. 90 In addition to considering
environmental impacts, New Starts pro-posals
must be reviewed on the basis of
their impacts on employment, operating
efficiency, cost effectiveness, land- use
impact, and level of local funding com-mitment.
91 By contrast, proposals for
new or expanded highways do not need
to justify themselves on the grounds of
economic impact, efficiency, cost- effec-tiveness
or land- use impacts.
The New Starts program gives
preference to transit projects
that have a higher local funding
share, meaning that the projects
rarely receive the 80- 20
federal- to- state match received
by highway projects.
Another severe disincentive for transit
is the difference in the federal “ match”
for highway and transit projects. In the-ory,
both types of projects are supposed
to receive an 80- 20 federal- state match.
In practice, however, the New Starts
program gives preference to new transit
projects that have a much higher local
funding share— forcing state and local
governments to scramble for sources of
local funding in the hopes of receiving
federal support. In 2002, Congress went
so far as to instruct the FTA not to sign
any new grant agreements that have a
maximum federal share of higher than 60
percent. 92 All of the projects currently in
the New Starts “ pipeline” have a federal
share of 61 percent or less. 93
40 A Better Way to Go
The difficulty of the New Starts pro-cess,
coupled with the requirement for a
larger local financial match, have caused
backers of some transit projects to es-chew
the program— and the promise of
federal funding— entirely. A 2007 survey
of transit project sponsors conducted by
the Government Accountability Office
( GAO) concluded that many sponsors
found the New Starts process “ complex,
time- consuming and costly.” Two- thirds
of project sponsors surveyed said that their
most recent transit project was eligible
for New Starts, but one- fourth of them
decided not to apply to the program. 94
The tougher road to funding for new
transit projects skews transportation
decision- making. For state and local
officials, pursuing federal funding for
worthwhile transit expansion projects
means committing to a long and arduous
process with no certainty of success and
having the ultimate “ pay- off” in federal
dollars being limited. By contrast, offi-cials
pursuing funding for highway proj-ects
are guaranteed a generous federal
match and need only convince their own
local and state officials to invest formula
funds in the project. The end result is a
process that encourages highway projects
over transit.
The challenges of receiving federal
funding for new transit projects are rep-licated
at the state level. In many states,
there is a strong and continuing bias
toward funding highway projects over
transit projects.
State Funding: The Missing Link
While the federal government has begun
to gradually increase its investment in
transit, many states remain primarily
( and in some cases, nearly exclusively)
focused on building highways to serve
transportation needs. Given existing
rules, this may make sense as a way to
maximize a state’s federal transportation
dollars; but it makes no sense for meeting
long- term transportation needs.
In 2005, states spent more than $ 100
billion on highways and highway- related
expenditures. 95 Yet, they spent only ap-proximately
$ 7.8 billion on transit capital
and operating expenses in 2004— a high-way-
to- transit ratio of more than 13- to-
1.96 Of the 50 states, 12 spent less than $ 1
million each in 2004 on transit operating
and capital assistance. 97 ( See Figure 10.)
In other words, more than one- fifth of
states make only token investments or
no investments at all in providing transit
service.
The mechanisms for financing roads
and transit are vastly different in many
states. Some states have constitutional
or statutory provisions that prohibit the
use of fuel tax revenue for anything other
than roads and bridges. In other words,
highway projects have a built- in source
of funding that is sometimes augmented
with money from state general funds. On
the other hand, transit projects are often
forced to fight with other projects for a
meager share of a state’s general funds.
States that limit fuel tax revenues to
road and bridge projects do the public
a disservice. First, fuel taxes should be
high enough to net revenue for a state’s
general fund, on the theory that driving
imposes large negative impacts on society
as a whole— for example, through air
pollution, noise, and congestion— and
drivers should compensate non- driving
taxpayers for those losses. Instead, as
discussed above ( see “ Transit vs. High-way
‘ Subsidies,’” page 36), non- driving
taxpayers currently subsidize drivers
through the diversion of general funds
to highway purposes.
Second, transit projects have distinct
benefits for highway users— reducing
traffic congestion and reducing the need
for costly highway improvements.
Some states and localities have com-pensated
for a lack of statewide funding
America’s Underinvestment in Transit 41
$ 0
$ 200
$ 400
$ 600
$ 800
$ 1,000
$ 1,200
$ 1,400
$ 1,600
$ 1,800
New York
New Jersey
Pennsylvania
California
Massachusetts
Illinois
Texas
Maryland
Dist. of Col.
Washington
Minnesota
Ohio
Florida
Michigan
Utah
Wisconsin
Connecticut
Virginia
Indiana
Delaware
North Carolina
Rhode Island
Tennessee
Arizona
Nevada
Louisiana
Oregon
S. Carolina
Alaska
Colorado
Missouri
Georgia
West Virginia
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Arkansas
Vermont
Oklahoma
Nebraska
Maine
Montana
North Dakota
New Hamp.
New Mexico
Alabama
South Dakota
Wyoming
Idaho
Hawaii
Mississippi
State Transit Capital and Operating Expenditures ( Millions)
Figure 10. State Operating and Capital Expenditures for Transit, 200498
42 A Better Way to Go
by creating local funding mechanisms,
such as local- option taxes in counties
served by transit agencies or funding
from general local revenues. Local gov-ernments
fund transit primarily through
general revenue and sales taxes. 99 Local
residents are often enthusiastic about
transit service and willing to spend local
funds, even if it requires an increase in
taxes. Between 2000 and 2005, voters
in 33 states approved approximately 70
percent of proposed transportation ref-erendums.
100
But the reliance on local funding,
while important for keeping existing
transit systems running and expanding
those systems, is also a symptom of state
officials’ frequent failure to provide ade-quate
funding for transit. Because transit
service delivers oil savings, global warm-ing
emission reductions and other values
that benefit all state residents— whether
they are urban, suburban or rural dwell-ers—
all state residents should pay for at
least some share of the cost of operating
transit systems.
While most states do a poor to fair job
of providing adequate funding for transit,
a few states do better. These states, by
and large, have dedicated funding sources
that provide a reliable stream of revenue
Between 2000 and 2005,
voters in 33 states approved
approximately 70 percent
of proposed transportation
referendums. But transit
projects too often are forced
rely on heavy local funding to
compensate or a lack of state
and federal investment.
The Proper Role of Transit Users in Financing Transit
The use of fuel tax revenue to support road construction and maintenance has
long been justified on the basis that it is a “ user fee.” Some economists and high-way
advocates argue that the same principle should be applied to transit – that
is, that transit users should pay most, if not all, of the expense to operate and
maintain transit systems.
The “ user fee” concept, however, is a limited and inappropriate way to think
about transportation finance. A better way to allocate the costs of transportation
systems is to allocate costs based on who benefits from a given investment.
Highway users, for example, pay most ( though hardly all) of the costs of operat-ing
and maintaining highways. They do not, however, currently pay for the costs
of other public resources they consume – for example, clean air. It is perfectly
justified to require drivers to pay for their use of these public resources.
On the other hand, transit systems provide benefits to a much wider slice
of society than those who ride the train or bus. Moreover, society may decide
that transit investments serve social objectives – for example, mobility for the
transportation disadvantaged and economic development aims – that justify a net
investment of public funds.
America’s Underinvestment in Transit 43
for transit, either via a share of fuel tax
revenues, a share of motor vehicle fees, a
dedicated tax ( such as a portion of a state
sales tax), revenues from highway tolls,
or other dedicated revenues. Across the
nation, sales taxes, general revenue and
“ other funds” each account for between
25 and 33 percent of state transit funds,
with fuel taxes accounting for less than
10 percent. 101
Booming Demand for
Transit: Will America
Miss the Opportunity?
Transit has the potential to benefit a
wide range of communities. Cities that
have taken the plunge and built new
transit lines over the last several decades
are enjoying the benefits of reduced oil
consumption, reduced congestion levels,
and rejuvenated urban areas.
It is no surprise, then, that dozens of
American communities are planning
to expand and modernize their transit
infrastructure. The recent GAO survey
of transit project sponsors found that
the sponsors had more than 140 proj-ects
eligible for funding under the New
Starts program and planned to seek fed-eral
funding for three- fourths of those
projects. 102 And as noted above, in recent
years, voters have approved more than
two- thirds of proposed transportation
referendums, in many cases voting to
increase or extend local- option taxes spe-cifically
devoted to transit programs. 103
The rising cost of owning and oper-ating
a vehicle, coupled with increasing
congestion, has driven many Americans
to desire new transportation choices. Ac-cording
to one recent poll, 75 percent of
those surveyed believed that improving
public transit and building communities
that require less driving are the best
solutions for reducing traffic, while only
21 percent— one in five— believed that
building new roads was the best solu-tion.
104
75 percent of Americans believe
that improving public transit
and building communities that
require less driving are the best
solutions for reducing traffic.
Only 21 percent believe that
building new roads is the best
solution.
Americans’ desire for better transpor-tation
alternatives isn’t just reflected in
their decisions at the ballot box, or their
responses to opinion surveys, but in their
In recent years, several cities have added down-town
trolleys and streetcars— like this one in
Portland, Oregon— which enable riders to get
around town quickly and inexpensively and bring
new life to urban centers. Credit: Cosmonaut
Creative Media, istockphoto. com
44 A Better Way to Go
actual traveling behavior. Between 1995
and 2006, the number of trips taken on
transit increased by 30 percent— a rate
faster than the growth of automobile
travel over the same period. 105 Through
the first three quarters of 2007, transit
ridership had increased by another 1.75
percent nationwide. 106 In 2006, transit
ridership surged beyond the 10 billion
trip mark— the highest transit ridership
since 1957.107
Even more Americans would take
transit if they had access to it. In a recent
poll, 53 percent of respondents— includ-ing
47 percent of solo car commuters—
said that they would take mass transit if
it were easily available where they live
and work. 109
Other demographic, economic and
cultural factors are also driving increased
demand for transit. The retirement of the
“ Baby Boom” generation will lead to a
surge in the number of older Americans,
with one in five Americans projected to
be 65 years old or older by 2030.110 Transit
plays an important role in the lives of
many older Americans, providing mo-bility
to those who cannot or should not
drive. Demand for transit services among
older Americans can only be expected
to increase as the nation’s population
continues to age.
At the same time, younger Ameri-cans
are also driving demand for transit
through changes in consumer prefer-ences.
Many younger Americans, for
example, are coming to prefer the variety
and convenience of living in compact,
mixed- use urban and suburban neigh-borhoods.
Cities across the country have
seen an explosion of urban condominium
and loft- style developments to address
pent- up demand. In 2003, for the first
time in American history, the cost per
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Transit Ridership ( million unlinked trips)
Figure 11. Transit Ridership Trends, 1995- 2006108
America’s Underinvestment in Transit 45
square foot of attached housing exceeded
that of detached single- family homes. 111
Rising demand for transit is lead-ing
many cities and transit agencies to
consider expansion of existing transit
networks. Figure 12 below shows some
of the American cities that are consider-ing
or proposing new or expanded light
rail or commuter rail systems, according
to the American Public Transportation
Association. This does not include cities
that have proposed bus rapid transit or
other transit systems.
America’s transportation system faces
dramatic challenges— the need to deal with
rising congestion, continued dependence
on oil, and the urgent need to reduce
global warming pollution among them.
Transit has shown that it can help the
United States address each of these
challenges. The American people are
demanding more transportation alter-natives
and are enthusiastic about the
prospect of transit to make a positive
contribution.
In short, all the elements are in place
for America to move toward a new trans-portation
future that is cleaner, safer,
more secure and friendlier to the envi-ronment
and our communities. All the
elements, that is, except for the political
will and the financial commitment.
Figure 12. Cities Considering New or Expanded Commuter Rail or Light Rail Systems
( partial list) 112
46 A Better Way to Go
E very American— from city dwellers
to those living in rural areas— has a
stake in reducing America’s depen-dence
on oil, our contribution to global
warming, and the traffic on our roads.
The politics of transportation funding
in America have historically pigeonholed
transit as an urban concern— something
for metropolitan areas to finance out of
local tax revenues or as a bargaining chip
to gain the support of urban lawmakers
for increased state or federal highway
funding.
To address the serious challenges
facing our transportation system, the
politics of transportation funding must
change. States and the federal govern-ment
must recognize that the nation’s
transportation future does not lie in ever-expanding
highway networks, but in a
robust, varied and flexible transportation
system in which clean, efficient transit
plays an increasingly important role.
The following is a vision for what a
new transportation future for America
might look like … and what it will take
to get there.
A Bold, National Agenda
In the mid- 1950s, the federal government
took a bold step in shaping America’s
future by committing to build the Inter-state
highway system. American taxpay-ers
spent $ 400 billion to make that vision
a reality.
The Interstate highway system is now
completed. A similar long- term national
vision is needed for transit in the United
States, accompanied by a similar commit-ment
of public resources. The following
should be part of that commitment:
Build or Expand Rapid Transit
Networks in All Major
American Cities
Metropolitan areas are America’s eco-nomic
engines. More than half of all
Americans live in a metropolitan area
of 1 million people or more. 113 These
metropolitan areas also account for ap-proximately
one- third of the number
of vehicle- miles traveled on American
highways annually. 114 Large metropolitan
A 21st Century Vision for Transit
in the United States
A 21st Century Vision 47
Table 10. Top 25 U. S. Metropolitan Areas and Transit Infrastructure
Metropolitan Area Population Transit Availability
New York- Northern New Jersey-
Long Island, NY- NJ- PA 18,818,536 CR, HR, LR, Bus
Los Angeles- Long Beach- Santa Ana, CA 12,950,129 CR, HR, LR, Bus
Chicago- Naperville- Joliet, IL- IN- WI 9,505,748 CR, HR, Bus
Dallas- Fort Worth- Arlington, TX 6,003,967 CR, LR, Bus
Philadelphia- Camden- Wilmington,
PA- NJ- DE- MD 5,826,742 CR, HR, LR, Bus
Houston- Sugar Land- Baytown, TX 5,539,949 LR, Bus
Miami- Fort Lauderdale- Miami Beach, FL 5,463,857 CR, HR, Bus
Washington- Arlington- Alexandria,
DC- VA- MD- WV 5,290,400 CR, HR, Bus
Atlanta- Sandy Springs- Marietta, GA 5,138,223 HR, Bus
Detroit- Warren- Livonia, MI 4,468,966 Bus
Boston- Cambridge- Quincy, MA- NH 4,455,217 CR, HR, LR, Bus
San Francisco- Oakland- Fremont, CA 4,180,027 CR, HR, LR, Bus
Phoenix- Mesa- Scottsdale, AZ 4,039,182 LR ( under const.), Bus
Riverside- San Bernardino- Ontario, CA 4,026,135 CR, Bus
Seattle- Tacoma- Bellevue, WA 3,263,497 CR, LR, Bus
Minneapolis- St. Paul- Bloomington, MN- WI 3,175,041 LR, Bus
San Diego- Carlsbad- San Marcos, CA 2,941,454 CR, LR, Bus
St. Louis, MO- IL 2,796,368 LR, Bus
Tampa- St. Petersburg- Clearwater, FL 2,697,731 LR ( heritage trolley), Bus
Baltimore- Towson, MD 2,658,405 CR, HR, LR, Bus
Denver- Aurora, CO 2,408,750 CR ( planned), LR, Bus
Pittsburgh, PA 2,370,776 LR, Bus
Portland- Vancouver- Beaverton, OR- WA 2,137,565 CR ( under const.), LR, Bus
Cleveland- Elyria- Mentor, OH 2,114,155 HR, LR, Bus
Cincinnati- Middletown, OH- KY- IN 2,104,218 Bus
CR= Commuter Rail; HR= Heavy Rail; LR= Light Rail
areas also tend to face the greatest im-pacts
from traffic congestion, making
them perfect candidates for expansion
of transit service.
Federal and state governments should
set a goal of ensuring that every metro-politan
area of 1 million or more people
has a viable rapid transit network—
consisting of subways, light rail, bus
rapid transit or other modes, depending
on the city— within the next decade. The
success of light rail in Salt Lake City, a
fast- growing metropolitan area of just
over 1 million people, suggests that any
city of 1 million or better can make rapid
transit work.
48 A Better Way to Go
The United States is already well on
its way to achieving this target. Nine of
America’s 10 largest metropolitan areas
have some form of rapid transit ( all except
Detroit). Of the 50 metropolitan areas
with a population of 1 million or more,
28 have some form of rail or bus rapid
transit, three more have new rapid transit
systems under construction or nearing
construction, and several more have
proposed transit systems on the drawing
board. 115 ( See Table 10.)
In addition to building new transit
systems in cities that do not have them,
the United States should invest in ex-panding
existing systems. Transit system
expansions create a whole that is greater
than the sum of its parts. The more
extensive a metropolitan area’s transit
network, the more residents can conduct
their day’s commute and errands without
getting into a car; the more households
will choose not to purchase a second car;
and the more each portion of the transit
network will generate riders transferring
from other areas in the system.
Expand Transit Options in Small
and Medium Sized Cities
Large metropolitan areas may experience
the greatest benefits from transit invest-ments,
but small and medium- sized cities
also gain from the mobility improve-ments
provided by transit service. Cities
with large institutions— such as major
colleges, medical centers and government
offices— have particular potential to use
transit to reduce traffic congestion and
parking needs. Creation of a signature
trolley, light rail, or other transit system
can also be a way that cities create an
identity for themselves, and thereby draw
tourists, investment and skilled workers.
Coupling improvements in transit ser-vice
with transit- oriented development
can maximize the potential of transit to
provide benefits in smaller cities.
Improve the Quality of the
Transit Experience
Americans will choose transit if it is
clean, safe, comfortable, convenient,
reliable and efficient. Unfortunately, in
many parts of America, transit service
has few or none of these qualities. But
Americans do not need to settle for poor
quality transit— indeed, in European
countries ( and some parts of the United
States), transit agencies have found ways
to make the transit experience more at-tractive
for travelers.
Some of these improvements can be
made at relatively low cost. For example,
one of the inherent advantages of transit
is that travelers are not occupied with
driving— they can safely read, work,
chat or carry on other activities. Pro-viding
free wireless Internet service on
transit vehicles, for example, can provide
an inducement for commuters to leave
their vehicles at home and take transit
instead.
Providing better information to transit
riders and making transit easier to use
can also lure more riders. Drivers have
access to many tools to make travel easier:
on- line mapping services like Mapquest;
on- demand traffic information via cell
phone, Internet or media; and electronic
tolling systems such as EZ- Pass that
work in multiple states. While many
transit agencies have begun to use tools
like on- line trip planners and automatic
cell phone alerts regarding transit delays,
there is little to no coordination across
transit agencies.
Federal and state governments should
work with transit agencies to provide
better and more information to commut-ers—
using on- line mapping, electronic
timetables at transit stops, standardized
fare cards that can work on multiple
transit systems, better coordination of
schedules to avoid layovers when switch-ing
transit lines, and other tools to make
using transit easier and more accessible.
A 21st Century Vision 49
Finally, simple steps can make transit
more convenient and comfortable. Low-floor
buses, which are being adopted by
many agencies, make it easier and faster
for passengers to board transit vehicles
( especially for the disabled and elderly).
Giving transit vehicles traffic signal
priority over private vehicles can speed
trips. And getting the basics right— on-time
service, clean vehicles and friendly
operators— is also important to ensure
that once riders try transit, they keep
coming back.
Serve the Suburbs
Suburban residents are often stuck with
few transportation choices. They may
live in dispersed communities or work in
suburban areas that are poorly served by
traditional “ hub- and- spokes” transit sys-tems,
and where the only form of transit
available may be a once- or twice- a- day
bus to the central city. With rising gaso-line
prices and increasing congestion,
many suburban residents would welcome
additional transportation choices.
Thankfully, there are several ways
that transit agencies can effectively serve
suburban travelers and weave suburban
areas into transit networks.
Ring Lines
Unlike most American transit systems,
which are built on a hub- and- spokes
model, many transit systems in other
parts of the world have a peripheral com-ponent
or “ ring line” that allow travelers
to travel around the city center without
having to go through it. Using commuter
rail or rapid transit service to serve sub-urban
areas can have important benefits,
making it easier for suburban residents to
reach jobs in outlying areas and reducing
crowding and congestion in the central
city’s transit network, thereby improving
the efficiency of transit operations for all
customers.
Commuter Rail
Commuter rail lines, as discussed above,
provide significant savings in oil con-sumption
and global warming emissions
while addressing congestion problems.
Every commuter rail service in the
United States provides a net savings in
oil consumption and all but one deliver
net reductions in global warming pol-lution.
Cities with growing suburban
populations should consider creation or
expansion of commuter rail networks
( though such expansion should also be
accompanied by the creation of transit-oriented
development in suburban com-munities
linked by rail).
Vanpools and Community Shuttles
In some sprawling suburban areas, fixed
route transit service will always be dif-ficult
to provide. However, there are
other options. Vanpool services offered
by transit agencies, state agencies, or pri-vate-
sector companies can link suburban
commuters and deliver significant savings
in energy consumption and emissions.
In some areas, most notably New Jersey,
states, towns and transit agencies have
Community shuttles, like this one in Maplewood,
New Jersey, can link residents with transit
stations and provide an important community
service. Credit: NJTransit
50 A Better Way to Go
teamed up to provide community shuttles
that link residents with nearby transit
stops during rush hours and can be used
for other community needs during the
rest of the day. Through the innovative
use of small vehicles, transit agencies can
ensure that suburban residents are able to
reap the benefits of transit.
Serve the Transportation
Disadvantaged
America’s elderly population is on the
rise. Rising oil prices are making trans-portation
even more expensive for low-income
families. America and the states
should respond to these challenges by
continuing and improving transit ser-vices
that provide mobility to those who
cannot or should not drive. Demand
response service, while not discussed in
this report, provides a critical lifeline to
the elderly and disabled. Much the same
role is played by many bus services. As
America invests in a 21st century transit
system, the states and federal government
must ensure that the benefits of that in-vestment
are shared with all Americans.
Link Cities via Rail
Just as America’s highways are increas-ingly
congested, so are our airports and
the skies over America’s cities. Air travel
is an expensive, energy- intensive and ( in
global warming terms) highly polluting
way to transport people.
There is no convenient substitute for
air travel for long- distance flights— from
coast to coast, for example, or overseas.
But for short- haul flights ( those of 500
miles or less), intercity rail travel could
provide a more efficient and, in some
cases, more convenient, mode of travel.
Europe and Japan have extensive high
speed rail networks, where trains regu-larly
travel at 125 miles per hour or faster,
with the fastest trains approaching speeds
of 200 miles per hour. Spain, for example,
is planning to build a rail line that will
-
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
Light Truck ( e. g.
SUVs, pickups)
Automobile Air Commuter Rail Amtrak
Energy Consumption ( BTU/ passenger mile)
Figure 13. Transportation Energy Efficiency ( BTU/ passenger mile) 116
A 21st Century Vision 51
High- speed rail provides clean, fast and efficient travel in Europe and Japan. The United States,
however, currently has only one high- speed rail line, linking Boston and Washington, D. C. Credit:
Remus Eserblom, istockphoto. com
cover the distance between Madrid and
Barcelona— a trip of approximately 375
miles— in two- and- a- half hours. 117
While high- speed trains are not as
fast as airplanes, the time required to
travel to and from the airport and pass
through airport security can make high-speed
rail competitive with air travel in
terms of travel time over short to medium
distances.
The United States currently has only
one high- speed rail line— the Amtrak
Acela service between Boston and
Washington, D. C. Even though the
Acela is barely a “ high- speed” train by
international standards, it has become
increasingly popular, with ridership in-creasing
by 20 percent in fiscal year 2007
alone to 3 million passengers. 118 A similar
phenomenon occurred when Amtrak
electrified its Keystone Corridor route
connecting Harrisburg, Pennsylvania,
Philadelphia and New York. The boost
in travel speeds led to a dramatic increase
in ridership, with a 20 percent year- over-year
increase. 119
Ridership on Amtrak’s high-speed
Acela service increased
by 20 percent in 2007 to
3 million passengers.
The examples of the Acela and the
Keystone Corridor suggest that when
high- speed rail options are made avail-able,
Americans will use them. There are
many other corridors in the United States
in which high- speed rail could prove suc-cessful.
In the early 1990s, the federal
government began to identify corridors
for the development of high- speed rail.
Thus far 11 high- speed rail corridors
have been identified from coast- to- coast
that would link many of the nation’s larg-est
metropolitan areas. Despite action by
several states to advance high- speed rail,
a lack of federal investment has held back
the development of faster rail service.
In addition to a long- term commit-ment
to high- speed rail, federal and
52 A Better Way to Go
state governments should take steps to
improve the quality of rail service in
the near term— for example, by expand-ing
rail capacity and improving rail
operations ( thereby reducing conflicts
between passenger and freight rail) and
by restoring regional rail links in areas
that have lost train service over the last
several decades.
Over the next decades every major in-tercity
corridor in the nation of 500 miles
or less should be connected with high
speed rail. Doing so will not only produce
large oil savings and avert global warm-ing
pollution; it will also avoid the need
for expensive expansions of airports.
Keep Fares Affordable
Building new, modern transit infrastruc-ture
will not address America’s most im-portant
challenges if people do not ride it.
Improving the quality of transit service is
one way to attract riders, but it is also im-portant
to keep fares affordable. Research
suggests, for example, that a 10 percent
increase in bus fares leads to a 4 percent
reduction in ridership. 120 Fare hikes can
lead to a downward spiral in which rid-ership
decreases, causing a reduction in
revenue for a transit agency, which causes
another round of fare hikes, triggering
additional ridership reductions.
In some cases, transit agencies should
seek to reduce fares or eliminate them
altogether. Lower fares during off- peak
periods can attract riders at times when
transit systems are not used to their full
capacity. Many transit agencies have used
partnerships with universities and other
large institutions to provide free or dis