1 / 29

Chapter 11 Mass Transit

Chapter 11 Mass Transit. Mass Transit: Introduction. Why do so few commuters use mass transit? When are buses better than rail systems (light and heavy)? What population density is required to support mass transit? How does transit revenue compare to cost?

anne-lott
Download Presentation

Chapter 11 Mass Transit

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Chapter 11Mass Transit

  2. Mass Transit: Introduction • Why do so few commuters use mass transit? • When are buses better than rail systems (light and heavy)? • What population density is required to support mass transit? • How does transit revenue compare to cost? • How would deregulation affect transit options?

  3. Variation in Ridership Across Metropolitan Areas • New York: 25% commuters use public transit • Shares 10 - 14%: Chicago, Washington, Philadelphia • Trillion-mile club: New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Washington, San Francisco, Boston, Philadelphia, Boston, Seattle

  4. Elasticities of Demand for Transit • Price elasticity of demand = -0.33 • Time Cost Elasticities • Line-haul time (in-vehicle time) = -0.39 • Access time (walk and wait time) = -0.71 • Opportunity cost of transit time • Line-haul: 0.50 • wage • Access time: 1.50 • wage • Non-commuting trips: more elastic demand in general

  5. Result: Auto advantage in access time dominates

  6. Few US cities Meet Minimum Densities for Transit • NY meets minimum for light rail and bus • 10 most dense metro areas nearly meet minimum for infrequent bus

  7. Tradeoffs in Transit Service • Bus system: headway (time between buses), space between stops • Heavy rail (BART) • Mainline (not integrated): riders require other mode for access • Widely spaced stations: improves line-haul at expense of access time • High access cost of BART limits its advantage over autos

  8. High-Occupancy Vehicle Lanes and Busways • Busways improve bus service • Increase line-haul speed and increase ridership • Increased ridership allows shorter headways • Diamond lanes may increase or decrease speed in other lanes

  9. System Choice: Average Cost of Transit Systems • Consider long-run cost of different transit systems • Include both capital and operating cost • Include both monetary and time cost

  10. Cost of the Auto System • Cost includes private cost (time and $), cost of building road, pollution cost • Congestion tax revenue covers cost of optimum road (Chapter 10) • Horizontal AC: road widened to accommodate increased traffic • Does not include external cost of greenhouse gases or collisions

  11. Cost of the Bus System and BART • Includes private & public and time & monetary cost of systems • Negatively sloped • Spread fixed costs over more riders • Increase in riders shortens headways and distances between stops, decreasing access cost • BART is more costly than the bus • Higher access cost: Longer headways and greater distances between stops • Higher capital cost (25x cost of equivalent bus system) • Higher operating cost

  12. System Choice • For all volumes studied, BART more costly than integrated bus • Heavy rail may be best choice for New York and Chicago? • New heavy rail (Washington, Atlanta, Baltimore, Miami): ridership below threshold

  13. Light Rail vs. Bus System • Higher capital cost: 5x cost ($881m vs. $168m in Long Beach) • Higher operating cost: $0.38 (Portland's MAX) > $0.35 for bus • Diverts bus passengers: 63% of LA Blue Line former bus riders • Feeder buses impose access costs on riders

  14. Transit Deficits • Fairbox Ratio: Fare Revenue / Operating Cost • From 1960 - 2002, Fairbox ratio dropped from 1.02 to 0.35 • Low fares and increased wages • Increased mileage: service extended to low-density areas • Small increase in ridership combined with doubling of employment • Increase in peak traffic, requiring more workers idle during off-peak

  15. Rationale for Transit Subsidies: Figure 11-2 • Indivisible inputs generate negatively sloped average cost • Economies of volume: more frequent service and lower time cost • Marginal principle: MB (from demand) = MC • Price = MC generates deficit = (AC- MC) • R* • Efficient pricing generates deficit

  16. Regulation of Urban Mass Transit • Public transit monopoly: firms cannot compete • Taxis cannot serve as common carrier • Rationale? • Prevent cream skimming and undermining cross subsidies for low-volume routes • Alternative is to directly subsidize low-volume routes

  17. Contracting for Transit Services • Local government specifies services and fares, and accepts low bid • Cost savings of 25 - 30% • Lower cost for firms: low wage, flexible work rules; minibuses

  18. Paratransit • Services between automobile and conventional bus • Shared-ride taxis (3-4 passengers), jitneys (6-15 passengers) • Subscription bus (10 - 60 passengers)

  19. British Experience with Deregulation • Transport Act (1985): entry, competitive bidding, lower subsidies • Results: more mini-vans, lower costs from lower wages and flexible work rules, elimination of low-volume service • Lessons • Competition combined with subsidies for low-volume routes • Competition generates innovation and cuts costs • Policies to foster competition necessary

  20. Transit and Land-Use Patterns • If they build it (transit system), will they come?

  21. Transit and Land-Use Patterns: BART Case • Objective: Increase employment near transit stations • Clustering negligible outside central business district • To increase employment, combine rail transit investment with policies that increase density

  22. Mass Transit and Poverty • Spatial mismatch not easily addressed with conventional transit systems • BART in San Francisco • System extended to link suburban jobs with poor central-city areas • Link increased Latino employment in jobs close to new transit route • No effect on black employment because route less accessible

More Related