Car Free Baltimore Rotating Header Image

transit

Why Baltimore Needs The Red Line

Another damn article about the Red Line

So the Red Line has been discussed to death, but I thought Car Free Baltimore should have a say. I often think how much easier my life would be if there were an east/west rail line in Baltimore.  While riding the bus has its charms (eh hum), the predictability and speed of fixed rail transit makes it the standard all over the world.  The arguments for and against the Red Line have been discussed ad nauseum, but here are a few more things to consider:

  • The private sector and downtown: The recent report by Downtown Partnership and news of high downtown vacancy rates indicate a need to bring more residents and businesses downtown. Lack of a comprehensive rail transit system is part of the problem.   Last I checked, a garage costs about $10,000-$12,000 per parking space – a huge cost to companies who want to locate downtown.  Many older office buildings may already have garages, but perhaps not enough spaces for new tenants. Creating better transit options can reduce the need to build new parking spaces, reducing costs to new businesses looking to relocate downtown.  Creating better commuting alternatives from the counties can also go a long way in attracting businesses and new employees. In other words, a comprehensive rail system in the city can lower the cost of doing business here.
  • Residential conversions: The aforementioned Downtown Partnership report calls for older office building to be converted into residential uses. This strategy has been very effective in Lower Manhattan, but most new residents in Manhattan don’t have to bring their cars when they move.  I know paying $100-$200 a month for a parking space would discourage a lot of new downtown residents.  An east-west transit route is the missing link for many of these folks, and may tip the scale toward downtown Baltimore becoming a vibrant, 24-7 transit accessible collection of neighborhoods where driving is considered an option and not a necessity. The Red Line can make living in the city more affordable, and subsequently more competitive with the Maryland suburbs.
  • Planning and inter-agency coordination:  Years of planning work and public involvement have created concepts for proposed Red Line station areas with an eye towards neighborhood improvement.  While no alignment will make every resident happy, it’s safe to say there has been more outreach, input from neighborhoods, and inter-agency coordination for the Red Line than any other local transportation project in recent history, including the existing Metro and light rail systems.
  • Less tangible, long term benefits:  This is a long one, so I’ll just link to the new Victoria Transport Policy Institute’s report on the benefits of comprehensive rail transit systems in major U.S. cities. A run down:
    • Higher per capita transit ridership
    • Lower per capita vehicle ownership
    • Less traffic congestion
    • Lower traffic death rates
    • Lower consumer spending on transportation
    • Higher transit service cost recovery

This ends the obligatory I Support The Red Line post.

Should Transit Be Free?

Also, auto user fees don't even pay the full construction and maintenance costs of roads (this statement probably wouldn't have fit on her back).

I stumbled on a blog the other day which asked a question I never really considered. I began to dig around and found a whole underground network of free transit advocates. Several cities around the world have abolished transit fares, usually with substantial ridership increases as a result. The fare free transit arguments are:

  • Reduction in operating costs (fare collectors, payment system terminals would be abolished)
  • Increased ridership
  • Broader demographic groups would ride because of convenience and low barriers to entry
  • The environmental, social and health benefits (positive externalities) of each new transit rider would more than compensate for lost fare box revenue
  • More political power/representation due to massive increases in ridership

Most fare free systems in the U.S. are on college campuses or downtown areas. Some of these systems are pretty comprehensive, like the Clemson Area Transit System in South Carolina. Entire cities have also gone fare-less like Hasselt, Belgium and Changning City, China.

This goes back to how we subsidize transportation. It’s well known that user fees (car registration fees, gas tax, etc) don’t cover the construction and maintenance costs of roads.  These funding gaps are filled by general obligation money- revenue from property taxes and such. Should we expect transit to exceed the financial standards we set for highways? Is having transit fare box revenue targets a worthwhile goal considering the personal and environmental benefits transit riders accrue?

We tend to treat highways as public goods and transit as a private commodity. Closing highways because there’s no money in the budget to maintain them is unheard of. Cutting transit service is done all the time – just look at Charlotte and Atlanta lately.  John Grooms at Creative Loafing had this to say about transit as a public good:

During bad economic times, local government still provides police protection and garbage pickup, and it still purifies and delivers water. And so it should be with public transportation. No transit system anywhere pays for itself, nor should it be expected to. Public transportation isn’t a business venture that’s obliged to turn a profit; it’s an essential service, one of those things, like the fire department, that falls into the category of communal responsibilities, something we owe and provide each other as fellow citizens.

Why your transit system sucks (from US PIRG Report "A Better Way To Go").

Fare free transit systems obviously require more funding to cover operations – but not that much more. The best systems – NYC and DC, have an average fare box recovery of 60%. Most transit systems only collect enough from fares to cover 30%-40% of their operation costs.

And when you compare collective capital spending on highways vs. transit (take, for example, Metropolitan Washington Transportation Planning Board’s $3 billion 270 widening project which slipped into their long range plan with little public input), highways have been the target of enormous federal, state and local money. My point is that subsidizing low cost or even free transit is orders of magnitude less expensive than what we spend on highways, while resulting in much greater benefits to users and society.

Given how tenuous funding is for transit systems all over the U.S., an argument for or against fare-less systems can quickly snowball into a “how do we find reliable money for transit” thesis. I’ll stop this post before it gets to that. Free transit does have huge benefits, but unfortunately most of these benefits are not easily represented on a spreadsheet. The Better Way To Go report from U.S. PIRG tries, though.

Mark Steiner Show: Telling it like it is

The Mark Steiner show on  WEAA 88.9 FM had a sleeves-rolled-up, tell-it-like-it-is panel of planning and transportation experts discussing transit in Maryland. Guests were:

Dan Pontius, Transportation advocate and former Executive Director of the Citizens Planning and Housing Association
Otis Rolley, Senior Manager of Urban Policy Development
Gerald Neily, Blogger for Baltimore Brew and Baltimore Inner Space, and former transportation planner with the City of Baltimore
Christopher Field, President of the Transit Riders Action Council of Metropolitan Baltimore

You can listen to it here.