Download
1 / 38
380 likes | 570 Views
As you click through the following slides, you'll find twelve statements about public transit that are often heard. Each of these statements is misleading and could be characterized as a myth or misconception. The information that follows each statement will show you why. The slides contain basi
E N D
2. As you click through the following slides, you’ll find twelve statements about public transit that are often heard. Each of these statements is misleading and could be characterized as a myth or misconception. The information that follows each statement will show you why. The slides contain basic information that will help you to become a ”transit mythbuster”. First, a little info about myths and misconceptions . . .
3. Why is it important to recognize and correct myths and misconceptions? Misconceptions about public transit lead to: - lack of support for public transit among legislators, administrators and potential funding sources - lack of funding or approval for transit improvements - declining transit service - unwise, undesirable or imbalanced transportation investments that may contribute to reductions in the quality of life or negatively impact economic well-being Clarifying misconceptions can lead to a better understanding of the true potential that investing in public transit has for improving our communi-ties, cities, quality of life and economic well-being
4. Myths and misconceptions: ? often have some basis in fact, i.e. they may be statements that are partially true or true under certain conditions, but are misleading when expressed as absolutes; overgeneralization is a common trait of myths and misconceptions. ? may sound believable because of common associations or experiences people may have. ? are sometimes perpetuated for a certain purpose or to promote a specific agenda. ? are sometimes even believed by professionals.
5. And now we’re ready to roll . . .
6. Statement # 1: “Supporting large-scale transit improvements means you must be anti-car.”
7. Consider:
Automobiles are sure to remain a popular form of transportation in the foreseeable future. It is illogical to assume that a transit supporter would not recognize this.
People who own automobiles and rely on them for various types of commutes are certainly found in numbers among those who support large-scale transit improvements.
A dominant pro-automobile lobby has existed for decades, promoting private vehicles as an all around superior transportation mode, whether for financial gain or otherwise. This view of transportation is one-sided. Promoting public transit only serves to draw attention to other alternatives.
Cars are not the problem; it is their overuse. Pro-transit groups, like the Citizens for Better Transit, recognize that transportation represents a complex system, and that a balanced approach is necessary to achieve efficiency. For many decades, there has been an imbalance in urban infrastructure investment and planning favoring the automobile. This approach has led to the overuse of cars, resulting in increased pollution and its environmental and health repercussions, traffic congestion and other impedances to mobility, lost production, skyrocketing insurance costs and accident rates as well as expensive urban sprawl. The investment in alternatives that have the potential to alleviate these problems—like public transit—has been suppressed. Thus, supporting transit improvements has a logical basis in historical fact.
The Citizens for Better Transit recognize that investment in quality public transit is a key to maximizing both the livability of our cities and the mobility of citizens, both of which are tied to economic well-being. Livable cities result from planned development and co-ordinated multimodal transportation planning that ensures a consistent investment in quality transit, as well as adequate investment in other forms of mobility (including private and commercial vehicle transportation, bicycles, pedestrian mobility).
9. Evidence from throughout North America and Europe has demonstrated that if a high quality transit system is available with frequent, direct and time-competitive service, people will use transit instead of private vehicles. While everyone will not switch to transit, a significant ‘modal shift’ can be achieved.
10. Manchester, England: 1/5 of the passengers using the first phase of its Metrolink rapid transit system switched from cars to public transit. The system reportedly removed 2.5 million car journeys from the roads annually and reduced traffic volumes on adjacent roads by up to 8%.
Denver, Colorado: LRT ridership jumped from 16,206 boardings per day to 32,000 in the weeks following the opening of an 8.7 mile extension in the Southwest Corridor. Park-and-Ride lots are overflowing, with the Littleton/Mineral lot exceeding capacity. In September 1999, an average of 232 cars used the lot daily. In September, 2000, the daily tally reached a staggering 1,246 vehicles, indicating the light rail system was having a significant effect in persuading commuters to leave their cars.
Portland, Oregon: Over a 16-year period, journeys to Downtown by transit were shown to increase by 3.2 percent for residents living along the rail rapid transit corridor, indicating a switch to transit. Weekday ridership on Portland’s East Side rapid transit lines has grown from 15,600 in 1987 to 23,400 in 1997 or, on average, about 4.5 percent annually.
San Francisco, California: The BART/SFO extension to the rapid transit system is estimated to eliminate around 10,000 automobile trips to the airport daily. Service on the line is currently being increased.
Washington, DC: Opening of the Metro caused total public transit ridership to double from 125 million in 1976 to over 240 million by 1990.
11. Statement # 3: “Taking transit is just as expensive as using your car.”
12. Some believe that the personal costs of commuting by transit are similar to those of using a private vehicle. One sometimes hears: “It only costs me $50 a month for parking at work, so why should I pay $58 to take the bus?” Citizens for Better Transit argues that these beliefs stem from misunderstandings of the true costs of motor vehicle use. According to the Canadian Automobile Association, for example, the owner of even an inexpensive new compact car pays over $8,000.00 per year or over $21.00 per day to purchase/lease, operate, maintain, license and insure that vehicle. This figure does not even consider the indirect costs of vehicle use such as auto-related pollution, health care, accidents and injuries, roadway construction and maintenance. Consider that using transit costs an individual less than $1.90 per day if a monthly adult pass is purchased.
13. Statement # 4: “Transit is slow and inconvenient. It always takes a lot more time than going by car.”
14. Consider: ?Taking public transit increases journey times in many cases, but it is also often true that travel times with public transit are similar to those by automobile, or the differences may be insignificant. ? When the time required to clean-off, start, and warm up a car on a cold winter morning are factored in, plus the time required to locate a parking stall, park the vehicle and walk to a building or facility, using an automobile for commuting can actually be more time consuming and less convenient than public transit. ? The toll of the stress associated with driving in rush hour traffic ought to be a good advertisement for the convenience of transit. ? Indirect or long, winding routes are actually more a product of transit underfunding; they are not an inherent feature of public transit. ? Rapid transit modes often reduce journey times such that transit is not only time-competitive, but actually much faster than automobile travel.
15. Some sample Commute Times in Edmonton, AM Peak Period Automobile vs. Transit
16. Statement # 5: “Only poor people use transit.”
17. Consider: ? Low income groups are often dependent on public transit for mobility because they may not be able to afford alternatives. However, it is false logic to conclude that public transit services are intended mainly for low incomes groups who cannot afford automobiles. ? In reality, transit riders come from all walks of life, all sectors of society. They are not restricted to low income groups, but include teachers, lawyers, academics, clerical staff, managers, business people, professionals and tradespeople. ? Where transit service quality is inadequate due to transit underfunding--as exemplified by such features as poor service frequencies--potential patrons who have access to other alternatives are discouraged from using public transit, leaving only those who absolutely need to patronize the system as transit riders. Quality investments in transit attract commuters from the entire spectrum of society and create meaningful diversity among the ridership. ? The transit ridership profiles of cities that have invested in high quality bus and rail services like Vancouver, Calgary, Toronto, Portland and San Francisco proves that providing quality public transit increases patronage from higher income groups that might otherwise use automobiles. Most people make rational transportation choices.
18. Statement # 6: “Public transit is expensive to implement and operate and must be heavily subsidized; auto users pay their own way.”
19.
It is true most transit systems are publicly owned and subsidized, but roadways are also publicly owned and subsidized.
Automobile users are subsidized in numerous ways. Some examples include
? the cost of road maintenance and new road construction
? the provision of “free parking”
? costs associated with policing and emergency services
? auto-related accident and injury costs
? the health effects of air and noise pollution
The amount of subsidy required for public transit to operate is markedly less or non-existent in most of these areas.
Roadways have obtained far more public funds in North America than any other transportation system.
The high subsidies paid toward private automobile travel are actually one of the reasons why transit must be subsidized.
20. In the United States, it has been estimated that highway costs alone exceed revenues derived from highway users by over $330 billion annually.
It is conservatively estimated that subsidies to support private vehicle use in Edmonton total over $7 million each year.
22. In Edmonton, transit users pay directly almost half of transit’s operating costs through fares. In other words, public transit covers a significant portion of its costs through “user fees”. Roadways, by comparison, earn very little direct revenue to cover their costs. Instead, funds for roadway maintenance must be derived from other sources, such as the tax base.
23. Municipal Budget Funding for Transit vs. Roadways after Deduction of Funding derived through Direct “User Fees” (Includes Capital and Operating Expenditures) Average for 10 years 1991-2000
24. Statement # 7: “Light rail and trolleybuses are ‘old’ technologies that go back to streetcar days; a twenty-first century city wouldn’t invest in them. Today we need to find travel modes that are ‘flexible’.”
25. Consider: ? One who believes this would also have to agree that the basis for automobile travel is ‘old’ technology. The use of cars for transportation dates from the nineteenth century, highways date back to the second century A.D., and the use of individual self-propelled carriages certainly predates the widespread use of electric mass transit modes like streetcars. ? Modern rail systems, in fact, use more state-of-the-art computer and electronic technology than is the case with any other surface transportation mode. Other electric transit modes like trolleybuses incorporate 21st century design features and use sophisticated electronic controls that are highly responsive and also save energy. These vehicles today bear less resemblance to the streetcars of old than automobiles do to a Model T Ford. ? If light rail and trolleybus systems were truly antiquated, their continued growth in popularity around the world since the 1970’s would defy explanation. ? The need for ‘flexibility’ in transit services is often overestimated. While it may be a valuable feature in areas where frequent service is not needed or viable, it is vastly overrated on main lines where there is an established demand for service. In fact, fixed transit infrastructure with its associated higher capital investment offers a permanence which may be of greater value in attracting riders as well as residential and commercial developments. ? Study after study in city after city has shown that light rail and trolleybus systems are preferred by citizens over simple bus services, despite their requirements for greater capital investment. If citizens prefer these modes, it follows that they will use transit more often if we invest in them.
26. Transit Mode Investment Preferences in Edmonton
27. Statement #8: “People won’t transfer; public transit needs to provide direct service to be successful.”
28. Consider: ?Beware of overgeneralizations! People tend to resist transfers between two infrequent or unreliable routes on an isolated street corner that lacks a transit shelter. ?Successful transit systems employ frequent, high quality service on main lines, properly coordinated with good, direct ‘feeder’ routes that bring passengers from residential or suburban areas to the main lines. They make transfers convenient and eliminate long waits. ? The cities with the highest per capita transit use (Boston, Paris, Toronto, Zürich) typically also have the highest transfer ratios. ?Public transit can better compete with car travel not by trying to provide “door-to-door” service, but instead by providing a multiplicity of opportunities for travel to different destinations on a fully integrated network. ? A few frequent routes provide a superior range of travel opportunities than multiple infrequent routes. ?Major transfer centres can be made attractive to customers by offering amenities such as stores, services, bank machines.
29. Statement #9: “Building a rapid transit line will wreck our neighborhood; our property values will hit rock bottom.”
30. Consider:
Before LRT, the areas around Edmonton’s Belvedere and Clareview Stations were largely undeveloped. Today, these have become prime residential and business areas. Light rail has played a role in making these areas “location efficient”, allowing people to live and do business there, but commute quickly across town to work or school. LRT in Belvedere and Clareview has certainly not negatively impacted property values.
A Philadelphia study found that proximity to a transit facility increased the value of suburban houses by an average of 6.4 percent. The more frequent the transit service, the greater the positive impact on property values.
Real estate professionals consulted in a recent Calgary study indicated they expect homes in the vicinity of LRT to appreciate faster in value than those in areas with less effective transit service. No adverse affects on the value of property located near LRT were found.
In Portland, proximity to rapid transit stations generates a 7-10% increase in house unit pricing. Stations attract housing and business development. Office and retail rents tend to be higher as well within a radius of 4/10 to 1 1/2 miles. The rail-based housing market tends to support upscale multi-family dwellings or higher density, upscale single-family units.
31. Statement # 10: “Transit is only a competitive transportation option for travelling to Downtown. In North American cities, the downtowns are dying; growth is only happening in the suburbs.”
32. Consider:
The downtowns of North America are not dying. By far the most significant concentrations of business activity in North American cities today occur in their downtown cores. The downtowns of major cities in North America typically represent between about 100,000 and 2 million jobs, and these numbers are rising. About 20% of Edmonton jobs are concentrated in the downtown core, and this is a significant number.
There has been considerable investment in downtown Edmonton since the 1980’s. The former rail lands along 104 Avenue have been developed, and new high density housing developments are springing up throughout the downtown core. Major shopping developments include a revamped Edmonton City Centre and retail facilities on 109 Street and Jasper Avenue. Property values are relatively high, housing space sells quickly, and more people are living and doing business downtown.
The volume of people working and living in North American downtowns would translate into huge traffic jams if everyone were to use an automobile for all of their trips, and we could never build enough parking space. Why, the cost of parking space alone would be staggering considering rising land values! Public Transit in Edmonton currently carries about 34% of all trips to Downtown in the weekday AM peak. The Transportation Master Plan (1999) predicts this will rise in the next 20 years.
Because most city centres are already highly developed areas, there isn’t space to expand existing roadway systems enough to eliminate congestion and accommodate all commuters in single occupant vehicles. Even if we could do so, the effects would be detrimental. Edmonton City Council ruled that it will not build new freeways into the city’s core areas.
Where growth and development occurs away from the downtown core, quality rapid transit options can provide connections that are more effective than roadways and their associated delays and traffic snarls.
33. Statement # 11: “There’s no point to invest in good public transit in the long term; ‘clean cars’ are just around the corner and will solve the car problem in our cities.”
34. Consider: ? The emission-free automobile is a long, long way from becoming a reality in meaningful numbers. Several major automakers recently cancelled their efforts to develop battery-electric vehicles; hydrogen fuel cells are unlikely to become popular for automobiles even in the long run owing to the poor overall efficiency of powering vehicles with fuel cells and the enormous costs involved in creating a hydrogen fuel supply. ? While emissions are a major issue, they are not the only problem associated with automobile use. Even if an emission-free car could be developed, the other problems created by excessive car use such as traffic congestion, production losses, accidents, high insurance costs, excessive energy consumption and expensive urban sprawl would remain.
35. Statement #12: “The solution to growing traffic congestion is to build more roads.”
36. Consider: ? Experience in many cities has proven that building more roads is, at best, a temporary solution to the problem of congestion and is actually counterproductive in the long run. ? Since car travel is grossly underpriced in terms of direct user costs, more roadways only result in more vehicle use, which serves to spread the congestion throughout the roadways network. One British study proved that roadway widening resulted in the generation of 10 to 20% more trips in a short period. A 40% increase was noted in congested areas. The British government has now decreed that “building new roads is the last resort”. ? Congestion is most effectively addressed by multimodal transportation planning that provides attractive alternatives to the automobile, sometimes even by adding auto use disincentives. These might take the form of public transit installations that have visible road priority over automobiles or operate on independent rights-of-way, making them time-competitive with automobile travel.
37. Hope you had fun busting myths with us. With a little practice, you’ll be ready to hit the streets as a full fledged ”mythbuster”! ? ????
38. Acknowledgements: Compilation: Kevin Brown, Chair, Citizens for Better Transit, Edmonton. Photography and Images: Ashley Bruce, ETS, Ed Filiatrault, Peter McLaughlin, Martin Parsons. Unicorn Artwork: Fuchsia’s Unicorn Clip Art at www.fortunecity.com. Lady Pat’s Unicorn Dream World at http://www.geocities.com/HotSprings/Falls/9187/Graphics/ClipArts.html. Data, Information: Terry Dejong, Transit Information Officer, ETS; Robert Rynerson, Transit Planner, RTD-Denver, Denver, Colorado; Marilyn Stecyk, Kaleidoscope Consulting Ltd., Edmonton. American Public Transportation Association. British House of Commons Report on Light Rapid Transit Systems, May 2000. Calgary Transit. City of Calgary Corporate Properties Group City of Edmonton, Department of Transportation and Streets. City of Edmonton, The True Costs of Transporting People (1996). City of Edmonton Department of Transportation and Streets. Transportation Master Plan: Solutions for the Future. April 1999. Dueker and Bianco - “Light Rail Transit Impacts in Portland”; Mass Transit magazine, Sept./Oct. 2000. Edmonton Transit System. Hubbell, Colquhoun, Bolder & Morrall, Light Rail Transit in Calgary. MarkTrend Research, Edmonton Transit Vehicles Survey (1993). Vuchic, Vukan R. Transportation for Livable Cities. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Center for Urban Policy Research, 1999. Zimmerman, Sam. “A Blueprint for Countering the Claims of Transit Critics”, Mass Transit, July-August 2002, p. 34-44.
