[sustran] Re: More on Ridership predictions, urban rail transit

[Todd Litman]

I think Mr. Cox indicates the basis of much disagreement about the value of
rail and busways, and other transportation investments, in his second
paragraph below which reflects the common assumption that transportation
investments in general and rail transit investments in particular should be
evaluated based only on their congestion reduction impacts. 

Rail transit investments probably won't reduce congestion as it is
conventionally measured, i.e., roadway level of service or average vehicle
traffic speeds because urban congestion tends to maintain a self-limiting
equilibrium. 

However, there is good reason to believe that rail transit can be a
catalyst for more accessible land use and improved transportation choice.
Although this will not significantly reduce traffic congestion, it can
reduce overall transportatiion costs and allow consumers a better range of
transportation and land use options to choose from. 

This is not to say that I think that rail transit is always better than
busways. However, it means that critics of rail transit should acknowledge
that there may be other significant evaluation criteria besides ridership,
costs-per-trip and direct congestion impacts. For discussion of these
issues see the following chapters in our Encyclopedia:

"Social Benefits of Public Transit" - http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm62.htm
"Accessibility" - http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm84.htm
"Transit Oriented Development - http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm45.htm
"Measuring Transportation" - http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm55.htm
"Comprehensive Transportation Evaluation" http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm76.htm


Best wishes.

-Todd Litman


At 09:21 AM 10/23/01 -0500, Wendell Cox wrote:
>Depends upon what you call official projections. In the case of Dallas, the
>projections made at the time the program was sold to the public for the
>ballot referendum are way above anything that will ever be achieved even
>when they finish the system.
>
>STL has done better, but as for reduction of traffic congestion during peak
>hours, or even slowing its growth, the score is, frankly, zero.
>
>One of the important debate issues is what projections are used to justify a
>project. In Los Angeles, we approved the Blue Line light rail line when the
>anticipated cost was less than $150 million. Even then, the votes were
>barely there at the time on the LACTC (commission). A series of cost
>increases eventually got the project to over $900m, with a more than
>doubling in real $ (dont remember the exact figure) by the time it was
>opened. Fact is that the votes would not have been there for a $900 million
>project in 1981, even in 1981$. For me, the crucial ridership and cost
>projections are those made at the point that the decision to proceed is
>made. Rarely will a government agency cancel a project once approved. Best
>example of that is the world record holding Big Dig in Boston.
>
>DEMOGRAPHIA & THE PUBLIC PURPOSE (Wendell Cox Consultancy)
>http://www.demographia.com (Demographics & Land Use)
>http://www.publicpurpose.com (Public Policy & Transport))
>Telephone: +1.618.632.8507 - Facsimile: +1.810.821.8134
>PO Box 841 - Belleville, IL 62222 USA
>----- Original Message -----
>From: <BruunB at aol.com>
>To: <sustran-discuss at jca.ax.apc.org>
>Sent: Tuesday, 23 October, 2001 10:16
>Subject: [sustran] More on Ridership predictions, urban rail transit
>
>
>> The Hudson-Bergen line is on the west side of the Hudson in New Jersey,
>right
>> across from Manhattan. By the way, ridership has changed substantially
>since
>> the
>> attack on the WTC.
>>
>> I want to point out two other things:
>>
>> 1) There are some new rail systems that are well above official
>projections,
>> for example, Dallas and Saint Louis.
>> 2) The concern that a line is not immediately near capacity is misplaced.
>Do
>> we want our airports or motorways to be near capacity right after opening?
>> No, we want reserve capacity, especially if we hope to attract develop
>along
>> the line.
>>
>> Eric
>
>
>
>

Sincerely,

Todd Litman, Director
Victoria Transport Policy Institute
"Efficiency - Equity - Clarity"
1250 Rudlin Street
Victoria, BC, V8V 3R7, Canada
Phone & Fax: 250-360-1560
E-mail:  litman at vtpi.org
Website: http://www.vtpi.org