Rail transit fails to reduce congestion
Rail transit is often proposed as a way to reduce traffic congestion on urban highways. Congestion, however, has increased faster in cities with new rail projects than those relying on highways to carry commuters and travelers.
Congestion increases with rail
Overall, traffic congestion increased by 23.8 percent from 1982 to 1994 in metropolitan areas with more than 1 million people. Congestion increased by 29.0 percent in cities with new rail projects and 22.2 percent in other urban areas. Thus, congestion increased 30.6 percent faster in new rail cities.
Congestion increased by 55 percent in San Diego, the fastest of any city using rail, despite opening its first rail line in 1981. Congestion increased by 32.5 percent in Sacramento, the second fastest among the 10 cities with new rail investments, followed by Atlanta (29.7%), Washington, D.C. (27.7%), and Portland (27.6%).
Rail falls short of forecasts
Rail transit’s inability to reduce congestion is generally attributed to two factors.
First, rail transit’s share of total trips is too small to have a significant impact on automobile use. The average transit usage by commuters in the United States is 2.2 percent. Transit carries more than 10 percent of commuter traffic in only New York, Washington, Chicago, Boston, and Philadelphia. Actual rail ridership typically falls significantly short of forecasts.
Second, most rail-transit riders are former bus passengers. In Portland, Oregon, as much as two-thirds of rail riders are former bus riders. More than 60 percent of rail riders in Los Angeles were former bus riders.
Notes
[1] Based on data from the Federal Highway Administration using the Texas Transportation Institute’s Roadway Congestion Index. The data are for urban areas with more than 1 million people. See Wendell Cox, "New Urban Rail in America: Miniscule Impact on Congestion," The Public Purpose, No. 23 (September 1998), http://www.publicpurpose.com/pp-rtraf.htm.
[2] San Diego also has one of the most cost-effective lines, recovering 90% of its operating costs from farebox revenues on the South (Blue) Line. Overall, however, the rail system only recovers two-thirds of its operating costs through farebox revenus. See Jonathan E.D. Richmond, "New Rail Transit Investments — A Review," A. Alfred Taubman Center for State and Local Government, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University 1998, p. 82.
[3] Randal O’Toole, "Urban Transit Myths: Misperceptions About Transit and American Mobility," Policy Study No. 245 (Los Angeles, California: Reason Public Policy Institute, September 1998), p. 43.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Actual ridership often falls 35% to 65% short of forecasted ridership. James V. DeLong, "Myths of Light Rail Transit," Policy Study No. 244 (Los Angeles, California: Reason Public Policy Institute, September 1998), p. 9.
[6] Richmond, "New Rail Transit Investments," pp. 33-4.
[7] DeLong, "Myths of Light Rail..."
