United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Air and Radiation
EPA420-5-gg-0/O
-. .. ..July 1998
Office of Mobile Sources
&EPA IRAQ Technical Overview
Transportation Air Quality Center
Transportation Control Measures:
Improved Public Transit
EPA's main strategy for addressing the contributions of motor vehicles
to our air quality problems has been to cut the tailpipe emissions for
every mile a vehicle travels. Air quality can also be improved by
changing the way motor vehicles are used—reducing total vehicle miles
traveled*at the critical times and places, and reducing the use of highly
polluting operating mg^s^Ihe^Mmi^m. a^aacMs,, usually ^
termed Transportation Control Measures (TCMs), have an important
role as both mandatory and optional elements of state plans for
attaining the air quality goals specified in the Clean Air Act. TCMs
encompass a wide variety of goals and methods, from incentives for
increasing vehicle occupancy to shifts in the timing of commuting trips.
This document is one of a series that provides overviews of individual
TCM types, discussing their advantages, disadvantages, and the issues
involved in their implementation.
> Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
Improved Public Transit
PageS
population with a means to find employment and an affordable way to commute. The elderly are
one of the fastest growing segments of the U.S. population and public transportation is critical to
meeting their mobility needs when they can no longer drive.
Despite these benefits, there are several costs that need to be evaluated when considering
improving public transit. Projects may be extremely costly if they are capital intensive (e.g.,
building rail lines) and rely on infrastructure changes; improvements involving transit schedules
and public awareness programs are much cheaper. Examples of capital intensive projects are a
dual rail/bus tunnel system in Seattle that will improve bus and rail service in the region, and a
light rail line servicing Houston. These projects cost $400 million and one billion dollars,
respectively. In Florida, the state department of transportation is largely funding a $36 million
project to implement "bus only" lanes that will save thousands of people time and money on their
commutes. [1] Improving bus shelters, instituting regional fare structures, and better signage are
examples of effective improvements that cost much less than the capital intensive examples
mentioned above.
3. Implementation
Making improvements in public transit may be a relatively risky strategy to relieve
congestion and improve air quality because:
*»• Implementing changes to mass transit systems often requires substantial up-front
investment of government resources.
*•• It may take a long period of time before infrastructure improvements are fully
operational.
*•• Improved public transit may not increase ridership immediately, despite public
awareness campaigns.
Improving transit systems is a complex process because of the extensive planning and
coordination that is required. First, prior to extending rail or bus service, transportation
departments need to secure adequate funding. This is often difficult because voter approval or
permission from the state legislature is usually required. Second, to ensure the effectiveness of a
public transit project, it is important to consider the land use patterns in the region. For example,
transit services should be designed in conjunction with urban development plans to ensure that
new development is served by transit. Additional considerations should be made to provide
minimal walking distances to transit corridors and adequately controlled parking. In short, transit
expansions should be part of a larger, more complex urban design project.
Once the improvements to public transit are made, aggressive marketing strategies should
be enacted to encourage people to change their behavior. This may be the greatest barrier to
-------
Improved Public Transit
Page 4
success, because people must realize the value of substituting mass transit for driving single
occupancy vehicles. Public outreach materials and advertisements may be helpful in increasing
voluntary ridership, but employer incentives are likely to be more effective.
The private sector plays an important role in increasing ridership in other ways as well.
Developers may be encouraged to design housing and offices in a manner that allows people to
conveniently use public transit. The private sector is also a valuable funding resource that may
aid in offsetting some of the investment and operations costs if transit improvements result in
employees using public transit and relying less on employer subsidized parking.
4. Equity Issues
Implementing improvements to mass
transit systems may benefit lower income
groups more than highr-income groups
because the cost savings resulting from
owning fewer vehicles and maintaining
them are proportionately greater for people
of lower incomes. People with lower incomes tend to ride mass transit systems more than higher
income individuals because they value money savings over time savings and convenience.
Because higher income people tend to value time savings more, they choose to drive when it is
quicker. If, however, taking a bus or rail line to work saves considerable time, high income
people may use public transit more, and therefore, benefit as much as lower-income earners.
Improving pubic transit may also benefit minorities, women, and the elderly. A large
number of minorities and women are projected to join the workforce, many of whom will benefit
from a convenient alternative to driving that is less expensive than purchasing and maintaining a
vehicle. Additionally, the number of elderly people is expected to grow considerably, and this
sector of the population relies heavily on mass transit for their transportation needs, once they
can no longer drive. It is worth noting, however, that much of the revenue used to enhance
public transit systems derives from sales taxes which are regressive. [3] Minorities, women, and
the elderly are disproportionately represented in the low-income sector of the population, and
these groups of people, therefore, may pay an inequitable amount for transit services.
5. Summary of Recent Examples
Three examples of improvements to public transit will be used to illustrate the potential
for reduced congestion, better air quality, and other benefits in light of the costs. The Bay Area
Rapid Transit system, or BART was constructed in the mid-1970s to service three core counties
in the region. It soon became apparent that the BART would need to be extended to include
service for two other Bay area counties, San Francisco Airport, more downtown areas, and the
-------
Improved Public Transit Page 5
suburban neighborhoods of Santa Clara County. The funding for these improvements was
derived from local (non-state) county sales taxes, old and new bridge tolls, Santa Clara County
tax funds, the state, and the Federal government. Transit authorities hoped the improvements
would continue to reduce the amount of auto travel in the region. In the mid- 1970's, auto travel
decreased by an average of 7.6 percent, partly because 37 percent of BART riders previously
drove alone. [1]
Another highly successful improvement in mass transit is the MetroLink which was
constructed in 1993 in St. Louis, Missouri. This 18-mile light rail transit line connects the
downtown area with residential, commercial, and entertainment centers along the Mississippi
River. It is an electric-powered system which is quiet, efficient, and does not emit exhaust. The
total cost of the light rail system was around $700 million, of which half was contributed by the
federal government and half was paid by local counties. Weekday ridership averages 37,000
passengers and it is estimated to reduce VMT in the St. Louis region by as much as 139,100
miles per day. In terms of air quality, annual greenhouse gas emissions aft reduced significantly
as result of saving 7,130 gallons of fuel each day. In its first year of operation, MetroLink was
estimated to have reduced carbon emissions by between 4,500 and 9,600 metric tons. [2]
6. Sources
[1] Transportation Control measure Information Documents, Cambridge Systematics, Inc., U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. (March 1992).
[2] Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions Through the Transportation Partners Program:
Recent Trends and Case Studies, Apogee Research, Inc., Bethesda, MD (September 1995).
[3] Opportunities to Improve Air Quality Through Transportation Pricing: An Information
Document for Public Officials and Practitioners, COMSIS Corporation
(September 1995).
7. An On-Line Resource
The Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Mobile Sources has established the
TCM Program Information Directory to provide commuters, the transportation industry, state and
local governments, and the public with information about TCM programs that are now operating
across the country. This document and additional information on other TCMs and TCM
programs implemented nationwide can be found at:
http://www.epa.gov/omswww/transp/traqtcms.htm
------- |