Twelve Charts Proving Why the Federal Government Should Terminate Transit Subsidies

Current total transit subsidies total more than $50 billion a year, with annual subsidies averaging more than $150 per U.S. resident. And, yet, most Americans rarely, if ever, use public transit — and ridership is declining…

image

Transit Ridership Is Declining:

Since 2014, ridership has been steadily falling in almost every urban area despite a healthy economy.

image

Transit’s Recent Decline Is Nearly Catastrophic in Some Areas:

image

Transit ridership in 31 of the nation’s 50 largest urban areas has dropped 15 percent or more since the year of highest ridership in each region in the last decade. While transit ridership has declined in the past, as it did between 1990 and 1995, it recovered due to high gas prices. Today, moderate gas prices are fueled by America’s resurging oil industry, and when that resurgence is combined with deteriorating transit infrastructure and the growth of the ride-hailing industry, it appears that the most recent decline may be irreversible.

Transit Requires High Downtown Job Concentrations:

image

Many assume that transit ridership is heavily influenced by population density, however, much more important to transit is the concentration of downtown jobs. A major reason for transit’s decline has been the dispersion of jobs from concentrated job centers to distribution across the urban landscape. O'Toole finds the only urban areas whose transit systems carried more than 10 percent of commuters had more than 240,000 downtown jobs.

Transit is Slow:

image

The average speed of transit is 15 miles per hour while the average speed of urban driving is at least 27 miles per hour.

Nearly Everyone Has a Car:

image

Americans have responded to the automobile’s advantages over transit by steadily increasing automobile ownership, with 21 percent of American households having three or more cars and fewer than 9 percent having no car. Making matters even more difficult for transit, about half the households with no cars also have no workers: only 4.3 percent of American workers live in households that have no cars. In addition, more than 20 percent of workers in carless households nevertheless drive alone to work (probably in employer-supplied cars) while fewer than 42 percent take transit to work.

Transit is Expensive:

image

Per passenger mile, transit costs more than four times as much as driving, and transit subsidies are more than 70 times larger than highway subsidies.

About Half the Cost of Transit Is Because It Is Government-Run:

image

Today transit carries fewer than 27,000 riders per operating employee compared to 59,000 riders per employee in the decade prior to 1964, the year Congress gave cities and states incentives to municipalize transit systems.

Since 1970, Subsidies Have Exceeded $1.3 Trillion:

image

Current total transit subsidies total more than $50 billion a year, with annual subsidies averaging more than $150 per U.S. resident even though most people rarely, if ever, use transit. A major problem with transit agencies’ dependence on subsidies is that such dependence makes them more beholden to politicians and their backers than to transit riders. Agencies become willing and eager to approve cushy union contracts and gold-plated infrastructure projects that do little to improve local or regional transportation. Meanwhile, politicians neglect the maintenance of existing systems, leading to frequent breakdowns.

Growing Subsidies Haven’t Boosted Transit Ridership:

image

At best, the tens of billions of dollars in annual transit subsidies have only slowed the decline in ridership.

Transit Is Increasingly Used By High-Income People:

image

The 2010 Census found that people who earned $75,000 or more per year were more likely to ride transit than any other income class.

Transit Isn’t Green:

image

In all but four urban areas, transit uses more energy and emits more greenhouse gases per passenger mile than driving.

Transit Spending Doesn’t Boost Urban Growth:

image

The fastest-growing urban areas in the 2000s were ones that spent the least on transit improvements in the 1990s, while urban areas that spent the most on transit improvements were among the slowest-growing regions.

Learn more…

Keeping Road Cyclists Safe

How do we safely integrate bicyclists onto roadways and protect them from collisions with minimal disruption?

image

Bicycling has seen a rapid increase in popularity in the United States in recent years. This popularity has led the share of commuters traveling by bicycle to increase faster than the share of commuters traveling by any other transportation mode. Road users converting from automobiles to active transportation such as bicycling reduce the external costs that automobiles impose in the form of increased congestion, pollution, and noise. However, as the number of bicyclists has grown, new problems have emerged. How do we protect bicyclists, one of the most vulnerable groups of road users, from collisions? How do we safely integrate them onto roadways with minimal disruption?

One solution that has gained momentum among state lawmakers is additional traffic laws to protect bicyclists. Those laws may require bicyclists to wear helmets or may outlaw the use of headphones while riding, but the most prolific of the laws restrict how vehicles may pass bicyclists. Those passing requirements, often referred to as minimum distance passing laws (MDPLs), require motorists to leave a minimum amount of space between their vehicle and bicyclists when overtaking them on roadways. Although the minimum passing distance varies somewhat between states, the most common incarnation of the law requires a minimum of three feet between bicyclist and vehicle. As of 2014, twenty-six states and Washington, D.C. had implemented an MDPL. While the first MDPL was implemented in Wisconsin in 1974, the number of states implementing these laws has grown in recent years, with 24 of the 26 laws on record in 2014 being passed since 2000.

Many praise these laws as much-needed passing guidelines, but critical flaws in the legislation may render it ineffective in improving bicyclist safety — as some bicycle advocacy groups have pointed out. The commonly cited flaws include inadequate minimum distances, loopholes that allow vehicles to pass within the minimum distance if they slow to safe and prudent speeds (the definition of which likely varies between bicyclists and drivers), poor police enforcement and driver awareness of the laws, and even the possibility that the laws set a benchmark that leads drivers who previously gave bicyclists a wider berth to adjust their behavior to provide only the minimum required distance.

In fact, not only do MDPLs not significantly decrease bicyclist fatalities, the results show that MDPLs may slightly increase bicyclist fatalities as evidenced by a persistent, though statistically insignificant, effect. Although the evidence that MDPLs increase bicyclist fatalities is far from conclusive, several factors might suggest such an outcome. As mentioned previously, MDPLs may effectively set a benchmark that could lead drivers who previously gave cyclists a much wider berth to adjust their behavior to provide only the minimum required distance. Another possibility is that drivers do not change their behavior after MDPL enactment because they are unaware of the law or for any other reason, but bicyclists are aware of the law and believe that motorists will now pass them more cautiously. This could potentially lead to bicyclists riding in a more reckless manner and increase bicycle collisions and fatalities.

The effects of MDPLs do not vary over time, and thus the insignificant result is not caused by announcement or delayed effects attenuating the estimates.

At best, MDPLs prevent one bicyclist fatality per state every 20.41 months. While preventing even a single accidental death is undoubtedly a good thing, the evidence suggests that MDPLs are ineffective in reducing bicyclist fatalities.

Given the low costs of MDPLs, policymakers may still wish to enact them even if they are ineffective in reducing fatalities. However, it might be possible to decrease the number of bicyclist fatalities by  increasing the minimum passing distance or altering driver education courses to facilitate awareness of MDPLs. Although further research is needed to determine the effectiveness of these alterations, they could be implemented with either zero or very low additional costs.

Learn More…

The Failing Future of U.S. Public Transit

The future of public transit in most U.S. cities is in jeopardy…

image

Public transit is one of the most heavily subsidized consumer-based industries in the United States, with annual subsidies of $50 billion covering 76% of its cost. 

But, total transit ridership — not just per capita — is declining, with a 4.4% drop nationwide from 2014 to 2016 and a 3.0% drop in the first seven months of 2017.

Plus, four trends that are likely to become even more pronounced in the future place the entire industry in jeopardy….

1. Ride-hailing services and the development of driverless cars are the largest threat to transit systems. Driverless cars will likely have more competitive rates than public transit, making them more convenient and just as economical. This technology will greatly benefit low income passengers who previously did not use ride-hailing services due to their higher costs. Once driverless cars are released in the market, it is likely that all need for public transportation — outside of New York City and perhaps a few other localities — will disappear within the decade.

2. Low oil prices have also affected transit ridership. Historically, when gasoline prices are low, public transit ridership declines, as research shows that it is more cost effective for people to commute via car. With new energy technologies, the U.S. is no longer heavily dependent on foreign countries for oil and as a result, oil prices have dropped, continue to remain low, and will likely stay low in the future.

3. Many transit companies choose not to allocate the billions of dollars that are required to maintain public rail systems. Most politicians favor spending subsidies on building “glitzy” new rails rather than improving old systems, which only exacerbates maintenance costs. For the D.C. Metrorail system alone, WMATA estimates that the system has a $6.7 billion maintenance backlog and needs to spend $17.4 billion over the next 10 years to fix and prevent the backlog from growing again.

4. Transit agencies have allowed unfunded pension and healthcare obligations to grow to staggering levels. Many systems, including Portland’s TriMet and Washington, D.C.’s WMATA, have unfunded obligations larger than their annual operating budgets. 

Instead of pumping federal aid into declining systems, policymakers should begin to prepare for the orderly phase-out of public transit in most U.S. cities

Transit systems, outside of a few very dense areas, should stop building new lines, replace most existing rail lines as they wear out with buses, pay down debts, and target any further subsidies to low-income people.

Learn More…

WMATA’s 29 Hour Shutdown

image

Originally posted by 5by5kevin

In October 2015, Cato Institute’s Randal O’Toole awarded the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) the dubious honor of being the nation’s worst-managed transit agency. 

It is no surprise then that just this afternoon, WMATA announced it was shutting down the entire Metrorail system for safety checks for 29 hours beginning at midnight tonight. 

This sums up Metro riders reaction to this news… 

image

Originally posted by gurlslife

Randal O’Toole has ideas on how to improve Metro and transit in general, WMATA take note: