Determining the Value of Public Transit Service
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Victoria Transport Policy Institute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Updated 29 October 2009
This chapter describes methods for evaluating public transit benefits, costs and equity impacts. These include financial subsidies, improved mobility, reduced traffic congestion, road and parking facility cost savings, consumer cost savings, reduced pollution emissions, and support for land use, economic development, and equity objectives. Conventional transportation planning often overlooks some of these positive impacts and so undervalues transit. More comprehensive evaluation practices tend to justify more policies and programs that support transit. This framework can also be used to evaluate ridesharing. This chapter summarizes the more comprehensive report Evaluating Public Transit Benefits and Costs, available at www.vtpi.org/tranben.pdf.
Impacts on Existing Transit Users
Safety, Health and Security Impacts
Energy Conservation and Emission
Reductions
Comparing Transit and Automobile
Costs
References And Resources For More
Information
Public Transit includes various services that provide mobility to the general public in shared vehicles, ranging from shuttle vans to buses and passenger rail systems. This chapter discusses how to Evaluate the value to society of a particular transit service or change in service. It describes how to create a comprehensive evaluation framework that incorporates various categories of impacts (benefits and costs), and how to quantify these impacts. It discusses how to determine whether a particular public transit program is worthwhile.
There are four general categories of transit improvements:
Since transit service and automobile travel both impose significant costs (including indirect costs such as congestion, road wear and pollution emissions), improvements and incentives that increase transit load factors and attract travelers who would otherwise drive tend to provide large benefits. Described differently, there is little benefit to society from simply operating transit vehicles (excepting Option Value); most benefits depend on how much transit is used, how well the service responds to users’ needs and preferences, the amount of automobile travel displaced, and the various savings and benefits that result (including reduced vehicle ownership and operating cost, avoided roadway and parking facility expansion, increased safety, etc.).
Economists and planners have developed computer Models and various analysis tools for evaluating the economic value of specific transport options. These were generally developed to evaluate a particular mode or objective. For example, highway investment models are designed to measure the value of road improvements, and emission reduction models are designed to prioritize emission reduction strategies. Because of their limited scope, these tools tend to be ineffective at evaluating multiple modes and planning objectives (Comprehensive Evaluation).
Conventional transport evaluation models tend to undervalue public transit because they overlook many benefits, as summarized in Table 1. To their credit, many public officials realize that transit provides more benefits than their models indicate, and so support transit more than is justified by benefit/cost analysis, but this occurs despite rather than as a result of formal economic evaluation. Decision making would improve with better evaluation Models that account for more impacts.
Table
1 Impacts Considered and
Overlooked (Comprehensive
Evaluation)
|
Usually
Considered |
Often
Overlooked |
|
Financial costs to governments Vehicle operating costs (fuel, tolls, tire wear) Travel time (reduced congestion) Per-mile crash risk Project construction environmental impacts |
Downstream congestion impacts Impacts on non-motorized travel Parking costs Vehicle ownership and mileage-based depreciation costs. Project construction traffic delays Generated traffic impacts Indirect environmental impacts Strategic land use impacts Transportation diversity value (e.g., mobility for non-drivers) Equity impacts Per-capita crash risk Impacts on physical activity and public health Some travelers’ preference for transit (lower travel time costs) |
Conventional transportation planning tends to focus on a limited set of impacts. Some tend to be overlooked because they are relatively difficult to quantify (equity, indirect environmental impacts, crash risk), and others are ignored simply out of tradition (parking costs, long-term vehicle costs, construction delays). These omissions tend to undervalue transit improvements.
Recent research expands the range of impacts to consider in transit evaluation (Cambridge Systematics, 1998; Cambridge Systematics, 1999; Lewis and Williams, 1999; TRB, 2000; Phillips, Karachepone and Landis, 2001; HLB, 2002; ECONorthwest and PBQD, 2002; MKI, 2003). This guide summarizes this research and describes how to apply more comprehensive evaluation in a particular situation.
Economic Evaluation (also called Appraisal or Analysis) refers to methods to determine the value of a planning option to support decision making (Litman, 2001). Economic evaluation involves quantifying and comparing the marginal (incremental) impacts (benefits and costs) of various options in a standardized format.
Economic evaluation requires an evaluation framework which specifies the basic structure of the analysis. This identifies the following (TDM Evaluation):
·
Evaluation
method, such
as cost-effectiveness, benefit-cost, lifecycle cost analysis, etc.
·
Evaluation
criteria, which are
the impacts to be considered in the analysis. Impacts can be defined in terms
of objectives or their opposite, problems (for example,
congestion reduction is an objective because congestion is considered a
problem), or they can be defined in terms of costs and benefits
(for example, congestion reduction benefits can be measured based on reduced
congestion costs).
·
Modeling techniques, which predict how a policy change or program will
affect travel behavior and land use patterns.
·
Base Case, meaning what would happen without the policy or
program.
·
Comparison
units, such as net
present value, benefit/cost ratio, or cost per lane-mile, vehicle-mile,
passenger-mile, incremental peak-period trip, etc.
·
Base year and
discount rate, which
indicates how costs are adjusted to reflect the time value of money.
·
Perspective
and scope, such as the
geographic range of impacts to consider.
·
Dealing with
uncertainty, such as use
of sensitivity analysis or other statistical tests.
·
How results
are presented, so that the
results of different evaluations can be compared.
It is important to carefully define the questions and options to be considered. A transit evaluation may consider whether a particular transit investment is cost effective (benefits exceed costs), which of several transit options provides the greatest net benefits, whether a transit improvement provides more value than a highway improvement, and how to optimize transit service benefits, and how the benefits and costs of a transportation option are distributed. It is generally best to evaluate several options, which may include a base case (what happens if no change is implemented), and various roadway improvements, transit improvements, and support strategies. Transit options might include small, medium and large service improvements, plus transit improvements combined with various support strategies such as ridership incentives and transit oriented development. All quantified values and calculations should be incorporated into a clearly-organized spreadsheet, which allows various options and assumptions to be tested and adjusted.
Transit system costs tend to be relatively easy to determine, since most show up in government agency budgets. The main challenge is therefore to identify all incremental benefits. Some impacts are difficult to monetized (measured in monetary units) with available analysis tools and data. Such impacts should be quantified as much as possible and described. For example, it may be impractical to place a dollar value on transit equity benefits, but it may be possible to predict the number and type of additional trips made by transportation disadvantaged people, and to discuss the implications of this additional mobility on their ability to access basic services, education and employment.
Some impacts can be considered in multiple categories, so it is important to avoid double-counting. For example, productivity gains from more accessible land use can be counted as land use benefits or economic benefits, but not both. Some impacts are economic transfers rather than net gains. It is important to identify their full effects. For example, from a local perspective, federal grants can be considered a net economic gain, since the money originates from elsewhere, but at a national level these are economic transfers, resources shifted from one area to another. Similarly, taxes and fares are economic transfers, costs to those who pay, and benefits to those who gain the revenue. Both types of impacts should be considered in economic evaluation.
Transit Level-Of-Service (LOS) refers to the convenience, comfort and security of transit travel as experienced by users (Phillips, Karachepone and Landis, 2001; Kittleson & Associates, 2003a and 2003b; Litman, 2007). Level-Of-Service (LOS) ratings, typically from A (best) to F (worst), are widely used in transport planning to evaluate problems and potential solutions. Such ratings systems can be used identify problems, establish Performance Indicators and targets, evaluate potential solutions, compare locations, and track trends. They can also be used for travel demand modeling, to identify the types of improvements that could increase transit ridership.
Table 2 lists Level-of-Service rating factors. The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT, 2007) developed the LOSPLAN computer program to automate these calculations.
Table
2 Level-of-Service
Rating Factors
|
Feature |
Description |
Indicators |
|
Availability |
Where and when transit service is available. |
· Annual service-kilometers per capita · Daily hours of service · Portion of destinations located within 500 meters of transit service. · Hours of service. |
|
Frequency |
Frequency of service and average wait time. |
· Trips per hour or day · Headways (time between trips) · Average waiting times. |
|
Travel Speed |
Transit travel speed. |
· Average vehicle speeds. · Transit travel speed relative to driving the same trip. · Door-to-door travel time. |
|
Reliability |
How well service actually follows published schedules. |
· On-time operation. · Portion of transfer connections made. · Mechanical failure frequency. |
|
Boarding speed |
Vehicle loading and unloading speed. |
· Dwell time · Boarding and alighting speeds. |
|
Users perceived safety and security. |
· Perceived transit passenger security. · Accidents and injuries. · Reported security incidents. · Visibility and lighting. · Official response to perceived risks. · Absence of vandalism. |
|
|
Price and affordability |
Fare prices, structure, payment options, ease of purchase. |
· Fares relative to average incomes. · Fares relative to other travel mode costs. · Targeted discounts or exemptions as appropriate. · Payment options (cash, credit cards, etc.) · Ticket availability (stations, stores, Internet, etc.) |
|
Integration |
Ease of transferring between transit and other travel modes (bus, train, ferry, airport, etc.). |
· Quality of transit service to transport terminals · Ease of accessing transit service information from transport terminals. |
|
Comfort |
Passenger comfort |
· Seating availability and quality. · Space (lack of crowding). · Quiet (lack of excessive noise). · Fresh air (lack of unpleasant smells) · Temperature (neither too hot or cold) · Cleanliness. · Washrooms and refreshments (for longer trips). |
|
Accessibility |
Ease of reaching transit stations and stops. |
· Transit Oriented Development. · Distance from transit stations and stops to destinations. · Walkability (quality of walking conditions) in areas serviced by transit. |
|
Baggage capacity |
Accommodation of baggage. |
· Ability, ease and cost of carrying baggage, including special items such as pets. |
|
Accommodation of diverse users including people with special needs. |
· Accessible design for transit vehicles, stations and nearby areas. · Ability to carry baggage · Ability to accommodate people who cannot read or understand the local language. |
|
|
User information |
Ease of obtaining user information. |
· Availability, accuracy and understandability of route, schedule and fare information, at stops, stations, destinations; by Internet and mobile telephone; and by transit agency staff and other information providers. · Real-time transit vehicle arrival information. · Information available to service people with special needs (audio or visual disabilities, inability to read or understand the local language, etc.) |
|
Courtesy and responsiveness |
Courtesy with which passengers are treated. |
·
How
passengers are treated by transit staff. ·
Ease
of filing a complaint. ·
Speed
and responsiveness with which complaints are treated. |
|
Attractiveness |
The attractiveness of public transit facilities. |
· Attractiveness of vehicles and facilities. · Attractiveness of documents and websites. · Quality of nearby buildings and landscaping. · Area Livability (environmental and social quality of an area) and community cohesion (quantity and quality of positive interactions among people in an area). · Number of parks and recreational areas accessible by nonmotorized facilities. |
|
Effectiveness of efforts to encourage public transportation. |
· Popularity of promotion programs. · Effectiveness at raising the social status of transit travel. · Increases in public transit ridership in response to marketing efforts. |
This table illustrates factors that can be included in transit and pedestrian Level-of-Service ratings used to adjust travel time values.
Several walking and cycling Performance Evaluation indices have been developed. Some are more complete than others, as summarized in Table 3. Newer indices tend to be more comprehensive and therefore more accurate at evaluating service quality and predicting the effects of changes in transit service and accessibility.
Table 3 Transit Indices Compared (Fu, Saccomanno and Xin, 2005)
|
Indices |
Studies |
Performance
Indicators |
Reflects
Transit
Availability? |
Reflects
Comfort and Convenience? |
Reflects
Travel Demand? |
|
Local Index of
Transit Availability |
Rood, 1997 |
Frequency;
capacity; route coverage |
Yes |
No |
No |
|
Public
Transportation Accessibility Level |
Hillman, |
Service frequency;
service coverage |
Yes |
No |
No |
|
Transit Level of
Service Indicator |
Kittelson &
Associates and URS, 2001 |
Service
coverage; frequency; service span; population; jobs |
Yes |
No |
Yes |
|
Transit Service
Accessibility Index |
Polzin et al.,
2002 |
Service
coverage; service span; frequency; travel demand |
Yes |
No |
Total number of trips |
|
Mobility Index |
Galindez and
Mireles- Cordov, 1999 |
Travel speed;
average vehicle occupancy |
No |
Yes |
No |
|
Service Quality
Index |
Hensher et al.,
2001 |
13 variables
(i.e., travel time; frequency, etc.) |
Yes |
No |
Yes |
|
Transit
Service Indicator (TSI) |
Fu, Saccomanno and Xin, 2005 |
Service
frequency, coverage, and various travel time components (walk, wait,
transfer, and ride) |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
This table compares various indices that can be used to evaluate service quality and predict the effects of service changes.
The benefits of a transit service or improvement are affected by the type of travel impacts it causes. The table below indicates the effects of various types of transit improvements. For example, some improvements provide basic mobility or increase affordability. Some are particularly effective at attracting motorists and reducing automobile travel.
Table 4 Travel
Impacts of Various Transit Improvements
|
Type of Transit Improvement |
Improved Service Quality |
Increased Affordability |
Provides Basic Mobility |
Reduces Auto Travel |
|
Additional routes, expanded coverage, increased service frequency and hours of operation. |
X |
|
X |
X |
|
Lower fares, increased public subsidies. |
|
X |
X |
X |
|
More special mobility services. |
|
X |
X |
|
|
Commute Trip Reduction programs, Commuter Financial Incentives, and other TDM Programs that encourage use of alternative modes. |
|
X |
|
X |
|
X |
|
|
X |
|
|
Comfort improvements, such as better seats and bus shelters. |
X |
|
|
X |
|
Transit Oriented Development and Smart Growth, that result in land use patterns more suitable for transit transportation. |
X |
|
|
X |
|
Pedestrian and Cycling Improvements that improve access around transit stops. |
X |
|
X |
X |
|
Improved rider information and Marketing programs. |
X |
|
|
X |
|
Improved Security. |
X |
|
X |
X |
|
Targeted services, such as express commuter buses, and services to Special Events. |
X |
|
|
X |
|
X |
|
X |
|
|
|
Park & Ride facilities. |
X |
|
|
X |
|
Bike and Transit Integration (bike racks on buses, bike routes and Bicycle Parking at transit stops). |
X |
|
X |
X |
This table summarizes the travel impacts of various transit improvements. Some improve conditions or reduce costs for existing riders, others cause shifts from automobile to transit.
Mobility benefits result from the additional mobility provided by a transportation service, particularly to people who are physically, economically or socially disadvantaged. These benefits are affected by the types of additional trips served. For example, transit services that provide basic mobility, such as access to medical services, essential shopping, education or employment opportunities, can be considered to provide greater benefits than more luxury trips, such as recreational travel (Basic Mobility).
Efficiency benefits result when transit reduces the costs of traffic congestion, road and parking facilities, accidents and pollution emissions. These benefits depend on the amount and type of automobile traffic reduced. For example, transit services provide extra benefits if they reduce urban-peak automobile trips, rather than off-peak or rural trips, because urban-peak automobile travel tends to impose the greatest congestion, parking and pollution costs. Table 5 compares mobility and efficiency objectives.
Table 5 Comparing Mobility and Efficiency Objectives
|
|
Mobility |
Efficiency |
|
Objective |
Increase mobility by non-drivers. |
Reduce costs such as congestion and pollution. |
|
How it is evaluated. |
Quality of mobility options available, particularly for disadvantaged people. |
Compared with the same trips made by automobile. |
|
Service distribution and coverage. |
Structured to provide the greatest possible coverage, including service at times and places where demand is low. |
Focused on urban-peak travel conditions where congestion, facility costs and pollution are worst. |
|
Service quality. |
Service may be basic (i.e., bus rather than rail), but it must be comprehensive and affordable. |
Designed to attract discretionary riders with premium quality service (e.g., rail rather than bus), Park & Ride, and express services. |
|
Fare structure. |
Affordable to disadvantaged people. |
Attractive to commuters. |
Public transit has have various objectives that sometimes conflict.
To help analyze travel impacts it is useful to determine mode substitution factors, that is, the change in automobile trips resulting from a change in transit trips, and vice versa. For example, when reduced fares increase bus ridership, typically 10-50% substitute for an automobile trip. Other trips shift from nonmotorized modes, vehicle passengers (which may involve a rideshare trip, in which case automobile travel is not reduced when a passenger shift to transit, or a chauffeured trip, in which a driver makes a special trip to carry a passenger), or be induced travel. Conversely, when a disincentive such as parking fees or road tolls cause automobile trips to decline, generally 20-60% shift to transit, depending on conditions. Pratt (1999) and TRL (2004) provide information on the mode shifts that typically result from incentives such as transit service improvements and parking pricing.
In addition to direct travel impacts (increased mobility by non-drivers, automobile travel shifted to transit), transit improvements can have indirect impacts by providing a catalyst for more multi-modal, accessible communities where people tend to own fewer cars and drive less than would otherwise occur (Pascall, 2001; Land Use Impacts on Transportation). These impacts can be significant. Some research indicates that where high-quality transit creates more efficient land use, each transit passenger-mile represents a reduction of 3 to 6 automobile vehicle-miles (Neff, 1996; Newman and Kenworthy, 1999, p. 87; Holtzclaw, 2000; Litman, 2005).
Travel Demand, refers to the number and types of trips people would make by a particular mode under particular conditions. The table below summarizes various factors that affect transit demand, and how they can be used to increase transit ridership.
Table 6 Factors Affecting Transit Ridership
|
Factors |
Using These Factors To Increase Ridership And
Benefits |
|
Convenience |
Increase transit service coverage and frequency. |
|
Information |
Provide information on where, when and how to use transit. |
|
Price |
Keep fares low and offer targeted discounts, such as commuter passes. |
|
Speed. |
Provide express commuter services and transit priority measures. |
|
Accessibility |
Develop more accessible land use patterns and more diverse transportation systems. |
|
Integration |
Provide park & ride facilities, transit service to major transportation terminals. |
|
Comfort |
Provide adequate service so transit vehicles are not crowded. |
|
Security |
Insure that transit vehicles, facilities and service areas are considered secure. |
|
Prestige |
Treat transit riders with respect, and promote transit as a desirable travel option. |
Many factors affect transit use. They can be used to increase ridership and benefits.
For example, a particular transit route might attract 5,000 riders per day under current conditions; 6,000 if more employers have Commute Trip Reduction programs; 7,000 if a local college has a Campus Transport Management program; 8,000 if service quality improves so every passenger is guaranteed a comfortable seat (no standees); 9,000 if Park & Ride, Pedestrian and Bicycle access improve; and 10,000 if Parking Management programs are implemented in the area.
For more information on transit demand see the Transportation Elasticities
chapter of VTPI (2002); Pratt (1999); Kittleson & Associates (1999);
Phillips, Karachepone and Landis (2001); Hass-Klau and Crampton (2002); TRL
(2004); Fehr & Peers (2004); Litman (2004b); TranSystem (2007); and CTOD
(2009). The Virtual Learning Arcade (IFS, 2001) is an interactive Internet based
model that predicts the travel impacts of various transit policies, including
changes in transit service, speed and price, and changes in the relative price
of driving. This can help officials and citizens evaluate potential
transportation policy options. Although designed to reflect
This section describes various types of transit impacts (benefits and costs), and how they can be measured. For additional information on these impacts see Litman, 2003.
Most direct transit service costs can be obtained from
transit agency budgets. Table 7 summarizes
Table 7 2002
|
|
Bus |
Trolley Bus |
Heavy Rail |
Commuter Rail |
Demand Response |
Light Rail |
Other |
Totals |
|
Capital Expenses (m) |
$3,028 |
$188 |
$4,564 |
$2,371 |
$173 |
$1,723 |
$253 |
$12,301 |
|
Operating Expenses (m) |
$12,586 |
$187 |
$4,268 |
$2,995 |
$1,636 |
$778 |
$457 |
$22,905 |
|
Total Expenses (m) |
$15,613 |
$374 |
$8,832 |
$5,366 |
$1,809 |
$2,502 |
$710 |
$35,206 |
|
Average Fare Per Trip |
$0.71 |
$0.51 |
$0.93 |
$3.50 |
$2.34 |
$0.67 |
$1.14 |
$0.92 |
|
Fare Revenues (m) |
$3,731 |
$60 |
$2,493 |
$1,449 |
$185 |
$226 |
$132 |
$8,275 |
|
Subsidy (Total Exp. - Fares) |
$11,882 |
$315 |
$6,339 |
$3,917 |
$1,624 |
$2,276 |
$577 |
$26,931 |
|
Vehicle Revenue Miles (m) |
1,864 |
13 |
604 |
259 |
525 |
60 |
102 |
3,427 |
|
Passenger Miles (m) |
19,527 |
188 |
13,663 |
9,450 |
651 |
1,432 |
1,034 |
45,944 |
|
Avg. Veh. Occupancy |
10.5 |
14.1 |
22.6 |
36.5 |
1.2 |
23.9 |
10.1 |
13.4 |
|
Avg. Trip Distance (miles) |
2.8 |
8.7 |
4.5 |
1.6 |
0.2 |
5.6 |
1.1 |
2.6 |
|
Unlinked Trips (m) |
5,268 |
116 |
2,688 |
414 |
79 |
337 |
116 |
9,017 |
|
Total Expend. Per Pass. Mile |
$0.80 |
$1.99 |
$0.65 |
$0.57 |
$2.78 |
$1.75 |
$0.69 |
$0.77 |
|
Fare Rev. Per Pass. Mile |
$0.19 |
$0.32 |
$0.18 |
$0.15 |
$0.28 |
$0.16 |
$0.13 |
$0.18 |
|
Subsidy Per Pass. Mile |
$0.61 |
$1.68 |
$0.46 |
$0.41 |
$2.50 |
$1.59 |
$0.56 |
$0.59 |
|
Percent Subsidy |
76% |
84% |
72% |
73% |
90% |
91% |
81% |
76% |
m=million
Costs and revenues can vary significantly within a particular transit system, line or route. In general, urban-peak transit has higher costs, but also has higher load factors and so tends to have greater cost recovery (lower subsidies) per passenger-mile compared with off-peak and suburban/rural transit service. The costs of a particular transit improvement can vary widely depending on conditions, such as whether rights-of-way and equipment already exist or must be acquired. If a transit service already exists, it is sometimes possible to increase capacity at minimal marginal cost.
Transit service costs can usually be obtained from transit agencies. Costs for specific transit programs and projects require analysis of the particular situation. For comparison it is usually helpful to calculate costs per passenger-mile or passenger-trip.
It is important to take into account impacts on existing users when evaluating changes in transit service and fares. This refers to trips that would be made by transit regardless of whether a new program or policy is implemented – additional transit trips made by existing users are considered in the mobility benefits section below.
Financial impacts on existing users can be measured directly. For example, a new $25 per month transit subsidy provided to 100 current transit commuters represents a $30,000 annual benefit to that group. A 25¢ fare increase that applies to 1,000,000 annual fares represents an annual cost of $250,000 to existing riders.
Some service quality changes can be measured with conventional transportation evaluation techniques, such as applying standard travel time values (“Travel Time Costs,” Litman, 2003). Travel time is generally valued at half average wage rates, and two or three times higher for time spent driving in congestion, walking to a transit stop, waiting for a bus, or traveling in unpleasant conditions such as in a crowded vehicle, as discussed later in this report. A value of about $8 per hour is appropriate for transit passengers who are comfortable, and a higher value of $16 per hour is appropriate for time spent walking, waiting or riding in a crowded transit vehicle.
For example, a bus priority strategy that saves transit riders 10,000 hours annually in travel time can be valued at $80,000 if all passengers have a seat, or $120,000 if half of those passengers are standees for whom travel time savings values are doubled. Similarly, benefits to existing users of increased transit frequency or coverage can be calculated based on their reduced average walking and waiting time.
A service improvement that increases rider comfort, such as reducing crowding, can also be measured by reducing the cost per hour of passenger travel time. For example, if a transit service improvement reduces crowding for 5,000 passenger-hours, the benefit to these riders can be considered worth $40,000, because it eliminates the travel time cost premium associated with uncomfortable conditions, reducing travel time costs from $16 to $8 per hour. Special surveys can help identify transit service quality factors that affect travel behavior, and the value that travelers place on these factors (Stradling, et al., 2007).
Mobility benefits result from additional personal travel that would not otherwise occur, particularly by people who are transportation disadvantaged, that is, they cannot drive due to physical, economic or social constraints.
Public transit currently serves a relatively small portion of trips in most communities, but the trips it serves tend to be high value to users and society. Transit provides Basic Mobility by helping people reach important activities such as medical services, education and employment. This is particularly true of Demand Response service riders, who have moderate to severe disabilities that limit their mobility, and often are unable to use other travel options, such as walking, cycling or conventional taxis.
Several categories of mobility benefits are described below. Some of these categories may overlap. They tend to differ in their nature and distribution (who benefits), and so reflect different perspectives. For example, user benefits tend to interest residents and public service support interests public officials.
This refers to direct benefits to users from increased access to services and activities, including medical services, economic benefits from schooling and employment, enjoyment from being able to attend social and recreational activities, and financial savings from being able to shop at a wider range of stores. By improving access to education and jobs transit can increase people’s economic opportunities.
People living near public transit service tend to work more days each year than those who lack such access (Sanchez, 1999), and many transit commuters report that they would be unable to continue at their current jobs or would earn less if transit services were unavailable (Crain & Associates, 1999). Similarly, a significant portion of students depend on public transit for commuting to schools and colleges, so a reduction in transit services can reduce their future productivity. A survey of adults with disabilities actively seeking work found 39% considered inadequate transport a barrier to employment (Fowkes, Oxley and Henser, 1994). Increased employment by such groups provides direct benefits to users and increases overall productivity. Economic benefits to businesses are discussed in the Productivity Benefits section.
Transit can support government agency activities and reduce their costs. For example, without transit services some people are unable to reach medical services, sometimes resulting in more acute and expensive medical problems. Transit services can help reduce welfare dependency and unemployment (Multisystems, et al, 2000). Transit access can affect elderly and disabled people’s ability to live independently, which can reduce care facility costs. As a result, a portion of public transit subsidies may be offset by savings in other government budgets.
Transit helps achieve community Equity objectives. It increases economic and social opportunities for people who are economically, physically and socially disadvantaged, and helps achieve equity objectives, such as helping physically and economically disadvantaged people access public services, education and employment opportunities. Transit helps reduce the relative degree that non-drivers are disadvantaged compared with motorists.
Transit services provides option value, referring to the value people place on having a service available, even if they do not currently use it (ECONorthwest and PBQD, 2002). Transit can provide critical transportation services during personal and community-wide emergencies, including when a personal vehicle has a mechanical failure, or a disaster limits automobile travel. This increases transportation system Resilience. Many people who do not currently use transit value its existence in case they need it in the future, similar to ship passengers valuing lifeboats, even when it is not used.
The value to users of increased mobility that results from price changes (fare reductions, targeted discounts, parking cash-out) can be calculated using the “rule of half,” which involves multiplying half the price change times the number of trips that increase or decrease, which represents the midpoint between the old price and the new price, and therefore the average incremental value of those trips (Small, 1999). For example, if a 50¢ fare discount increases transit ridership by 10,000 trips, the value to users of these additional trips can be considered to be $2,500 (10,000 x 50¢ x ½).
In most situations the maximum value to users of mobility benefits is their savings relative to the same trips by taxi, which represents a more costly but nearly universal alternative. Cheaper alternatives are sometimes available, such as walking, cycling, ridesharing or telecommuting, so actual average savings are probably about half taxi savings, assuming a linear curve of alternative travel option costs.
Demand response services tend to provide significantly greater mobility benefits because users face greater transportation constraints, and alternatives options tend to be more costly. Many demand response clients are unable to walk, and some cannot be accommodated by conventional taxis because they have large mechanical wheelchairs or other special needs.
Passengers who shift from a current transit route to a new route can be assumed to benefit from increased convenience and time savings, typically from reduced walking. This can be calculated from user surveys or estimated at $1-3 value of travel time savings per trip, assuming 5-10 minute average time savings per trip.
The table below summarizes the four categories of transit mobility benefits and describes how they can be measured. Mobility benefits are affected by the degree to which transit service is available to those who need it and the additional mobility it provides. For example, a transit improvement that increases the number of households and worksites within a quarter-mile of bus service, or which increases the number of trips made by people with disabilities or low incomes, can be considered to increase mobility benefits. These benefits sometimes overlap; for example, some user and public service benefits can also be counted as equity benefits.
Table 8 Comparing Equity and Efficiency Objectives
|
Category |
Description |
How It Can Be Measured |
|
User Benefits |
Direct user benefits from the additional mobility provided by public transit. |
Rider surveys to determine the degree that users depend on transit, the types of trips they make, and the value they place on this mobility. |
|
Public Service Support |
Supports public services and reduces government agency costs. |
Consultation with public agency officials, and surveys of clients, to determine the role transit provides in supporting public service goals. |
|
Equity |
Degree to which transit helps achieve equity objectives such as basic mobility for physically, economically and socially disadvantaged people. |
Portion of transit users who are economically, socially or physically disadvantaged, the importance of mobility in ameliorating these inequities, and the value that society places on increased equity. |
|
Option Value |
Benefits of having mobility options available in case it is ever needed. |
Transit service
coverage, ability of transit to serve in emergencies, the value that society
places on mobility insurance. EcoNorthwest and PBQD (2002) describes ways to
quantify transit option value. |
Public transit provides several types of mobility benefits. These are affected by the degree that transit service is available to non-drivers, and the amount of increased mobility it provides.
Efficiency benefits consist of savings and other benefits that result when transit substitutes for automobile travel. These include vehicle cost savings, avoided chauffeuring, congestion reductions, parking cost savings, increased safety and health, energy conservation and pollution emission reductions.
These benefits are affected by the magnitude and type of automobile travel reduced. For example, urban-peak automobile travel reductions tend to provide greater benefits than reductions in urban off-peak or rural travel, due to greater reductions in traffic congestion, parking costs and other costs. As a city grows, these benefits become increasingly important as a cost effective way to reduce traffic congestion and parking problems, particularly to major commercial and employment centers such as downtown. These benefits increase if transit improvements and incentives are designed to attract discretionary riders (people who have the option of driving).
The efficiency benefits of transit improvements reflect the factors described below.
· Strategies that increase bus mileage on routes with low load factors (for example, increasing mileage on suburban and off-peak routes) may increase some costs, such as total energy consumption and pollution emissions.
· Strategies that shift travel from automobile to transit while increasing average vehicle occupancies (that is, they help fill otherwise empty buses) tend to reduce overall costs.
· Strategies that improve transit vehicle performance (for example, retrofitting older diesel buses with cleaner engines or alternative fuels, or creating busways that reduce congestion delays) tend to reduce specific costs.
· Strategies that create more accessible land use patterns and less automobile-dependent transportation systems, provide large benefits by reducing overall per capita vehicle travel.
Specific efficiency benefits and how they can be measured are discussed below.
Shifting travel from automobile to transit Vehicle Cost savings to consumers. The magnitude of these savings depends on several factors, including the type of mileage reduced and whether vehicle ownership declines (“Vehicle Costs,” Litman, 2003).
At a minimum, shifting from driving to transit saves fuel and oil, which typically total about 10¢ per vehicle-mile reduced. In addition, depreciation, insurance and residential parking are partly variable, since increased driving increases the frequency of vehicle repairs and replacement, reduces vehicle resale value, and increases the risks of crashes, traffic and parking citations. These additional mileage-related costs typically average 10-15¢ per mile, so cost savings total 20-25¢ per mile reduced. Savings may be greater under congested conditions, or where transit users avoid parking fees or road tolls.
Consumers save more if transit allows vehicle ownership reductions. For example, if improved transit services allow 10% of users to reduce their household vehicle ownership (e.g., from two vehicles to one), the savings average $300 annually per user (assuming a second car has $3,000 annual ownership costs), or 6¢ per transit travel passenger-mile (assuming 20 miles of transit travel a day, 250 days per year) in addition to vehicle operating cost savings. Reduced vehicle ownership can reduce residential parking costs. Cumulative savings can be large. McCann (2000) found that households in communities with good transit use save an average of about $3,000 annually on transportation costs. Litman (2004) found annual transportation cost savings of about $1,300 per household in cities with well-established rail transit systems compared with cities that lack rail.
Table 9 summarizes various categories of savings that can result from reduced automobile ownership and use. These savings typically total 30¢ per off-peak vehicle-mile and 40¢ per urban-peak vehicle-mile when automobile travel shifts to public transit. Other researchers recommend using 40-50¢ per vehicle mile reduced (ECONorthwest and PBQD, 2002). Even greater savings result if transit oriented development causes a significant number of households to reduce their vehicle ownership.
Table 9 Potential
Vehicle Cost Savings (Vehicle
Costs)
|
Category |
Description |
How It Can Be Measured |
Typical Values |
|
Vehicle Operating Costs |
Fuel, oil and tire wear. |
Per-mile costs times mileage reduced. |
10-15¢ per vehicle-mile. Higher under congested conditions. |
|
Long-Term Mileage-Related Costs |
Mileage-related depreciation, mileage lease fees, user costs from crashes and tickets. |
Per-mile costs times mileage reduced. |
10¢ per vehicle-mile. |
|
Special Costs |
Tolls, parking fees, Parking Cash Out, PAYD insurance. |
Specific market conditions. |
Varies. |
|
Vehicle Ownership |
Reductions in fixed vehicle costs. |
Reduced vehicle ownership times vehicle ownership costs. |
$3,000 per vehicle-year. |
|
Residential Parking |
Reductions in residential parking costs due to reduced vehicle ownership. |
Reduced vehicle ownership times savings per reduced residential parking space. |
$100-1,200 per vehicle-year. |
Reducing automobile travel can provide a variety of consumer savings. (2001 U.S. dollars).
Chauffeuring refers to additional automobile travel specifically to carry a passenger. It can also include taxi trips. It excludes Ridesharing, which means additional passengers in a vehicle that would be making a trip anyway. Some motorists spend a significant amount of time chauffeuring children to school and sports activities, family members to jobs, and elderly relatives on errands. Such trips can be particularly inefficient if they require drivers to make an empty return trip, so a five-mile passenger trip produces ten miles of total vehicle travel. Drivers sometimes enjoy chauffeuring, for example, when it gives busy family members or friends time to visit. However, chauffeuring can be an undesirable burden, for example, when it conflict with other important activities. Transit service allows drivers to avoid undesirable chauffeuring trips while still providing enjoyable trips.
This benefit can be estimated based on the number of chauffeured automobile trips shifted to transit, times vehicle cost and driver travel time savings. Rider surveys and experience with service disruptions indicate that in typical conditions, 10-40% of transit trips would otherwise be made as automobile passengers, and about half of these are rideshare trips (passengers in vehicles that would be making the trip anyway), meaning that 5-20% of transit trips substitute for chauffeured trips. Travel and rider surveys can help determine the portion of such trips in a particular situation.
Traffic Congestion consists of the incremental delay, stress, vehicle operating costs and pollution that each additional vehicle imposes on other road users. A typical urban street lane can carry up to 500-1,000 vehicles per hour, and a typical highway lane can carry up to 1,800-2,300 vehicles per hour. Congestion develops when traffic volumes approach these limits. When roads are full, even modest mode shifts can provide significant congestion reductions. For example, reducing congested roadway traffic volumes 5% can reduces delays 10-30%.
Transit can provide significant congestion reduction benefits, even if it only carries a small portion of total regional travel. Transit tends to be most effective on congested urban corridors where travel is concentrated and roadway capacity expansion is particularly costly. Expanding such urban roadways tends to provide little long-term congestion reduction benefit, due to latent demand, and it often increases other transportation problems such as downstream congestion. For example, increasing highway capacity adds traffic to surface streets, increasing local traffic congestion. As a result, planners recognize the increasing importance of transit and ridesharing to address roadway congestion problems (TTI, 2003).
Most congestion cost studies only consider delays that vehicle traffic imposes on other motor vehicle users. Roads and vehicle traffic also cause non-motorized travel delay, called the “barrier effect” or “severance” (Litman, 2003). Such costs can be significant in urban areas where transit travel is most common. On some urban streets there are as many pedestrians as motorists. This suggests that transit improvements that reduce surface street traffic volumes provide additional benefits by improving pedestrian mobility and safety, which are overlooked in conventional congestion cost analysis.
There are several ways to measure congestion reduction benefits that result from reduced vehicle traffic (TRB, 1997). One approach is to model total passenger travel time with and without a transit program, and calculate the travel time and vehicle operating cost savings (ECONorthwest and PBQD, 2002). The Texas Transportation Institute uses a similar method to calculate congestion reduction value of transit (TTI, 2003). Another approach is to calculate the costs of increasing roadway capacity to achieve a given congestion reduction, and divide that by the number of peak-period vehicle-miles. These methods require modeling each option, and current transportation models are often not very accurate at predicting the travel impacts of a transit project.
An easier approach is to assign a dollar value to reduced automobile travel, typically estimated at 10-30¢ per urban-peak vehicle-mile, and more under highly congested conditions (Litman, 2003). Congestion benefits should reflect net impacts, that is, the reduction in automobile trips minus any additional transit impacts. Under typical conditions buses impose congestion costs equivalent to 1.5 cars on highway and 4.5 cars on surface streets, so net benefits occur when more than about three trips shift from automobile to transit. For example, if a bus carries 16 passengers under urban-peak conditions, and 8 of the passengers would otherwise travel by automobile (either driving themselves or chauffeured), the congestion reduction benefit is (8-3) x $0.25 = $1.25 per vehicle-mile.
Where transit provides significant travel time savings compared with driving on parallel highways (for example, with grade-separated rail transit or busways) it is possible to calculate the resulting reduction in congestion delays. For example, if average door-to-door travel times by automobile are 30-minutes per peak-period trip, and a proposed transit service will provide 25-minute average trip times, the transit service can be expected to reduce average travel times by approximately 5-minutes per trip for all users. Travel time cost values can be applied (“Travel Time Costs,” Litman, 2003).
Studies described in Evaluating Nonmotorized Transport and “The Barrier Effect” (Litman, 2003) indicate that barrier effect costs average about 2¢ per urban-peak car-mile, and about 1.3¢ under urban off-peak conditions. As with vehicle congestion, a bus represents about 3 passenger car equivalents.
Table 10 shows the recommended congestion cost values.
Table 10 Recommended Congestion Cost Values (Per Vehicle-Mile)
|
|
Urban Peak |
Urban Off-Peak |
|
Vehicle Congestion Costs |
25¢ |
2.5 |
|
Pedestrian Congestion Costs |
2¢ |
1.3¢ |
|
Total Congestion Costs |
27¢ |
3.8¢ |
Shifts from automobile to transit travel reduces Parking costs. Reduced vehicle ownership reduces residential parking demand (including on-street parking demand in residential areas), and reduced vehicle trips reduces non-residential parking demand, such as commercial parking requirements. This benefit can manifest itself as user cost savings where parking is priced, reduced parking congestion and increased convenience to motorists, and reductions in the need for businesses and governments to subsidize parking facilities. Reduced parking demand can also provide indirect benefits by reducing the amount of land needed for parking facilities, allowing more clustered and infill development. These land use benefits are discussed in more detail in a later chapter.
Parking cost savings can be calculated by multiplying reduced automobile round trips times average cost per parking space. These values will vary depending on conditions. Parking tends to be expensive and in limited supply under urban-peak conditions where shifts from driving to transit are most common, so transit tends to provide significant parking cost savings. In suburban and rural areas, parking may be inexpensive and abundant so there is less short-term benefit. Where parking is priced, parking cost savings go to users rather than businesses. The Parking Evaluation chapter provides detailed instructions for calculating parking cost savings. These average about $5.00 per day under urban conditions and $2.00 per day under suburban conditions.
Dividing these values in half to reflect individual trips, and assuming that most peak-period trips are to urban destination, and off-peak trips tend to be to more suburban destination, default values are $2.18 per peak trip and $0.84 per off-peak trip. The higher cost of peak-period trips also reflects the fact that they tend to be commute trips, in which a car would be parked all day, while more off-peak trips are for errands with shorter parking requirements.
Transit use can affect Safety, Health and Security in several ways.
Transit is a relatively safe travel mode. Transit passengers have about one-tenth the fatality rate as car occupants, and even considering risks to other road users transit causes less than half the total deaths per passenger-mile as automobile travel. Since risks to other road users is hardly affected by increased occupancy, average crash costs tend to decline with increased vehicle occupancy.
Inadequate physical activity contributes to cardiovascular disease, diabetes, hypertension, obesity, osteoporosis and some cancers. Many health experts believe that increased active transportation (walking and cycling) is one of the most practical ways to increase community Health and Fitness (AJHP, 2003). Most transit trips involve walking or cycling links, so transit use tends to increase physical activity. Efforts to encourage transit, reduce automobile traffic, and create transit oriented development often improve pedestrian and cycling conditions, which can further increase fitness and health.
Personal security refers to freedom from assault, theft and vandalism. Transit travel is sometimes thought to increase personal security risks to passengers and transit station neighbors, but these do not necessarily represent an increase in risk, since motorists also encounter personal security threats, such as car thefts, road rage, and aggressive driving (STPP, 1999).
These risks can be reduced by programs to Address Security Concerns. Transit improvements and TDM strategies that encourage transit use tend to increase rider security, because busy pedestrian facilities and transit waiting areas tend to be self-patrolling (fellow transit riders discourage and report crimes), and increased ridership can justify more safety programs. Although an individual may perceive that transit travel reduces personal security, increased transit use by responsible people tends to reduce overall risks to the community.
Accident costs and health risks are often monetized for public policy analysis (Litman, 2003). Although an individual’s life has essentially infinite value (most people would not give up their life for any size monetary payment), many private and public decisions involve tradeoffs between risk and financial costs. For example, when consumers decide whether to pay extra for safety options such as air bags, and when communities allocate funds for services such as law enforcement, fire protection, and medical services, they are essentially placing a price on marginal changes in human safety and health.
Transit provides greater safety benefits if it leverages additional traffic reductions, as described in the “Traffic Impacts” chapter of this guide. If each passenger-mile of transit travel reduces two to four vehicle-miles of travel, as some estimates indicate, each transit passenger-mile provides an additional 20-40¢ in crash cost savings.
Roadway costs include road maintenance, construction and land, and various traffic services such as planning, policing, emergency services and lighting. These costs are affected by vehicle weight, size and speed. Heavier vehicles impose more road wear, and larger and faster vehicles require more road space. These costs are not necessarily marginal. For example, a 10% reduction in vehicle traffic does not necessarily cause a 10% reduction in roadway costs. In urban areas with significant congestion problems and high land values, even a modest reduction in traffic volumes can provide large savings.
Where a transit project avoids or defers the need for major highway capacity expansion, the avoided costs can be considered a benefit of transit. Urban highway capacity expansion typically costs $4-10 million per lane-mile for land acquisition, lane pavement and intersection reconstruction (Cambridge Systematics, 1992). This represents an annualized cost of $200,000-500,000 per lane-mile (assuming a 7% interest rate over 20 years). Dividing this by 4,000 to 8,000 additional peak-period vehicles for 250 annual commute days indicates a cost of 10-50¢ per additional peak-period vehicle-mile.
Table 11 summarizes cost impacts of automobile to transit shifts. Where vans and small buses replace driving on local street, roadway cost savings typically average 1-3¢ per reduced automobile-mile. Where full-size buses operate on local streets, there is probably little or no roadway cost savings. Where buses operate on major roadways designed to accommodate heavy vehicles, roadway costs are reduced. Where urban automobile travel shift to rail transit, savings typically average about 5¢ per vehicle-mile reduced, or 2¢ per mile net costs taking into account fuel tax revenues). If a transit service or improvement avoids or defers the need for a specific highway project, avoided costs can be calculated. Such savings typically average 15-50¢ per reduced urban-peak automobile-mile.
Table 11 Roadway Cost Impacts of Automobile To Transit Shifts
|
Category |
Description |
Cost Impact |