Why Do We Subsidize Parking for Public Transit Users?

The Dirty Truth Behind Park & Rides (Matt Steele, StreetsMM, Mar. 18, 2014)


Today we review some suggestions from Minneapolis where the proposal to expand their park and ride facilities is assessed in terms of what it costs to give the parking away free (when it costs $10 per user) compared to other more cost effective options, such as doing away with higher express fares at peak use times or producing more revenue from the lot areas than giving away parking. Bottom line is that the number of extra riders and revenue produced by free parking is less than improvements to the transit system itself which would make the latter more efficient and double the net revenue. A good question whether this arguments holds for cities such as Ottawa that are sprawled out over more than 2,800 km2 where some suburban and rural areas are poorly or expensively served by public transit. But it is always useful to consider impacts on ridership and the costs of subsidies in running very expensive public transit systems.

    

Key Quotes:

 “For less than the cost of two Maplewood park & rides serving up to (2×580=) 1160 parked cars, we’re building a full Arterial BRT line on Snelling Avenue scheduled to open next year. Those improvements will serve an estimated ridership of 8,700. And, unlike additional parking spaces, these amenities serve all riders (not just the 3,000 new ones). This is 7.5 times more productive than the same investment in parking.”

“If the new Maplewood Mall ramp capital is amortized over a 20 year period, we’re spending roughly $1200 per space per year to have the capacity for 580 new park & riders. At 240 workdays a year, a $5 parking fee would be necessary just to pay off the investment. $5 per person in addition to the transit fare to operate the bus. A $5 parking fee which wouldn’t even pay for maintenance, snow removal, and lighting – so let’s bump that up to $7.”

 “Modern technology allows us to decouple parking costs from other costs, which is the first step. The near-ubiquity of GoTo cards (especially on commuter routes) allows for us to have a fast way to account for parking transactions, possibly with an RFID-equipped entry gate or a validation match to a parking space.”

“The second step is to eliminate the express fare for those who do not consume parking spaces.” “Suburban park & riders are clearly not paying $9.50 to park before paying an additional fare to get on the bus. Someone else is paying to subsidize their car storage habits. And you’re it.”

Related articles

• Who Pays for "Free" Park-and-Ride Parking?
• More public transit riders, paying far more to ride
• More public transit riders, paying far more to ride
• Sound Transit approves $1 fare to ride Tacoma Link
• Fares fair? Calgary Transit subsidies outrank other big cities
• Here's How The Government Should Be Subsidizing Public Transit
• Design for the Road: The Story Behind Los Angeles' CicLAvia
• Cost per daily rider
• Officials Say Metro Transit Ridership Up Slightly In 2013

Turning the Corner on Car Use in the USA, Australia, Canada, Europe and Asia

Decoupling Urban Car Use and Metropolitan GDP Growth(30 page pdf, Jeff Kenworthy, pg. 7-21, World Transport Policy & Practice, Oct. 30, 2013) Also discussed here: World Transport Policy & Practice – Vol. 19, No. 4 (World Streets, Oct. 30, 2013)



Today we review data on car use per $GDP from 42 cities that indicate that car use is declining, mainly due to improvements in public transit in terms of economic value and speed compared to private vehicles, and to the growth of social media, urban intensification and the knowledge economy. Traffic congestion is the main barrier to speed for either cars or bus transit and when steps, such as road pricing, are taken to reduce congestion, the advantage of bus transit is greater. The greatest decline in car use occurred in European cities where a combination of Light Rail Transit and urban congestion charging seem to be progressing the most.

.


 

Key Quotes:  

“The car vehicle kilometres travelled per unit of GDP in thirty-nine out of the forty-two cities studied has reduced by an average of 24%”

“Decoupling of urban mobility from GDP can occur in the context of still rising car use or total mobility. However, in twelve out of the forty-two cities the actual car use per capita also declined by an average of over 6%.”

“New data showing an improvement in the relative speed of public transport systems … which is being led by a strong global trend towards urban rail, may help to explain these results.”

“European cities needed less than half the car use to generate the same amount of GDP as in US cities.”

“Peak car use appears to be happening due .. to the growth of the knowledge/services econ­omy, the urban youth culture and use of social media, an increasing popularity of urban locations with rising urban densities and a revival in the use of transit, espe­cially urban rail”

“it is the unre­strained use of cars in peak periods, which causes the congestion that so damages bus competitiveness. An even greater im­provement in the relative speed of public transport could be gained by controlling congestion in a systematic way so that bus­es could compete effectively in speed terms with cars ”

“helping us to imagine a future where wealth can continue to be created globally whilst reducing the use of cars, oil and their damaging global impacts.”

Related articles

• Alternatives to the Automobile
• Electric car that that folds itself launches in Spain
• City's 2010 urban rail study actually examined corridors! But botched the analysis...
• Revealed: Europe's Most Congested Cities - And How To Cut Traffic Jams
• Demand Management in Edinburgh: A Road User Charging Scheme
• The Case Against Cars in 1 Utterly Entrancing GIF

What Will Happen to the Suburbs as Cities Aim to be Healthy and Sustainable?

The End of Suburbs?(Urban Milwaukee, Sep. 26, 2013)

Also discussed here:Next Generation Suburbs(19 page pdf, David McKeown, Medical Officer of Health, The Chief Planner Roundtable, Toronto, Apr. 2, 2013)

 Today we examine the future and viability of suburban areas that have grown in the last era of cheap oil and uncontrolled sprawl that has afflicted many cities since the end of World War 2. This period now seems to be coming to an end as the boomer generation which fed suburban growth wants to downsize and move to a residence closer to the urban core where a more attractive life style and conveniences awaits them. Property taxes in the suburbs which have been low compared to urban rates now will rise because of costs to renew the infrastructure are passed on to suburban residents. At the same time, the flood of commuters continue to bring traffic congestion and unhealthy air pollution with the vehicles to the urban core. A key aspect is the need to plan for transportation modes that encourage exercise (walking and cycling) to curb the obesity that comes from dependence on driving and the need for more greenspace in the urban cores.


 

Key Quotes:

“cities growing because older suburbanites are trading in their large suburban homes for smaller city dwellings with less commuter traffic, more restaurants and cultural offerings, and greater ethnic and racial diversity. The luster has come off the suburban lifestyle that developed after World War II…and people are rediscovering their cities.”

“Boomers are downsizing and who is going to buy their McMansions?”

 “property taxes in suburbs are about to skyrocket. Originally suburban taxes were lower because developers put in all the roads, sewer and water lines. But as suburban infrastructure needs replacing, each street may have only a half dozen homeowners to bear the costs. A city block may have two or three times the number of homeowners to spread the costs.”

“A transportation system that prioritizes walking, cycling, affordable public transit and efficient transport of goods and services will promote health and reduce inequities”

Related articles

• GTA sprawl out of control
• Calgary's top city planner says higher density suburbs strike right balance
• Face Of Poverty Increasingly Suburban
• Urbanized suburbs are the future, experts say
• City Or Suburbs: Which Is More Efficient For Your Business?
• Sprawl question generates the most fireworks at Calgary's Ward 1 forum
• Will Rising Energy Prices End Suburban Sprawl?
• Canada's new identity: a suburban nation
• How the Chicago Region Can Confront Suburban Poverty

How Does Urban Sprawl Impact the Environment?

English: Urban Sprawl in London, Ontario (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The Environmental Impacts of Sprawl: Emergent Themes from the Past Decade of Planning Research(26 page pdf, Bev Wilson and Arnab Chakraborty, Sustainability, Aug. 5, 2013)

Today we review a literature review of articles that examine the meaning of urban sprawl globally, its impacts on air, water, land and energy, how it relates to justice and equity and how different countries either encourage or discourage its growth. The authors point out that, although sprawl has no widely accepted definition, improvement comes when it is viewed within the context of urban sustainability rather than narrowly as a geographic metric.

Key Quotes:

“At its core, urban sprawl is a complex and multifaceted phenomenon with no universally accepted definition.. In the Western context the term typically evokes images of low density, automobile dependent, and largely monotonous residential development along the periphery of an urban area”

“compact development can significantly reduce pollutant emissions at the regional scale, but only over the long-term and when complemented with growth controls, disincentives for vehicle use, and technological emissions controls.”

“The consumption of fossil fuels is the largest contributor to CO2 emissions followed by land use change ..and these are the primary connections between urban sprawl and climate change observable in the planning literature.”

“Within the buildings sector, the connection between urban sprawl and climate change hinges on energy losses through transmission lines (i.e., longer distances spanned), larger heated areas on average, and increased surface temperatures by virtue of the heat island effect in areas with more sprawl”

“Conceptualising urban sprawl as a pattern of development unfolding over time that is incompatible with commonly accepted characteristics of sustainable development can potentially alleviate many of the difficulties that have plagued sprawl research”

“Economic and social dimensions of sustainable development are as important as environmental considerations and the true challenge for those who inhabit, manage, and study urban area is to somehow balance these three aspects.”

Related articles

• Metropolis 0.0: Old-School Daguerrotypes Capture Urban Sprawl of the 1800s
• Urban Sprawl
• Societal Costs of Sprawl: A New Look
• Once There Were Greenfields; How Urban Sprawl is Undermining America's Environment, Economy, and Social Fabric downloads
• Sprawl Does Not Reduce Economic Mobility
• Calgary ninth on international prosperity report
• Urban Sprawl : a problem need to be sloved

Reducing GHG Emissions by Shorter Commutes and More Energy-Efficient Homes

Housing and Mobility Demands of Individual Households and their Life Cycle Assessment(Abstract, Dominik Saner, Niko Heeren, Boris Jäggi, Rashid A. Waraich, and Stefanie Hellweg, Environmental Science & Technology, May 6. 2013)

Also discussed here: 21 Percent of Homes Emit 50 Percent of CO2(Julia Whitty, MotherJones, Jun. 27, 2013)

Today we review estimates of CO2 emitted by the two largest sources in a medium-sized Swiss town: emissions from homes and vehicles. While it has long been known that these two sources account globally for 70% of greenhouse gas emissions, this research looks at grouping within the population and found that larger houses (which makes up about a fifth of the total) and drivers with longer commutes accounted for more than 50% of the total. This suggests that a focus on home and vehicle energy efficiency (or on smaller homes and shorter commutes) would produce the most effective results, to the extent that reducing the emissions of these two groups by 50% would reduce the overall total by 25%.

Key Quotes:

“The energy people use to power their homes and drive their lives accounts for more than 70 percent of CO2 emissions”

“on a midsized community, we found a median value of greenhouse gas emissions of 3.12 t CO₂ equiv and a mean value of 4.30 t CO₂ equiv per capita and year for housing and mobility.”

“Twenty-one percent of the households in the investigated region were responsible for 50% of the total greenhouse gas emissions, meaning that if their emissions could be halved the total emissions of the community would be reduced by 25%.”

”driving factors for large environmental footprints are demands of large living area heated by fossil energy carriers, as well as large demands of motorized private transportation.”

Related articles

• Maryland governor releases final Greenhouse Gas Reduction Act Plan
• Ford looks to reduce carbon footprint in supply chain
• Green Subsidies Have Close to Zero Effect on Emissions
• India launches initiative to measure and report GHG emissions
• California High-Speed Rail To Have Net Zero Emissions
• Carbon Dioxide Power Plants: Could The Greenhouse Gas Be Used To Generate Electricity?
• EU Commission Takes First Step in Reducing Emissions from Shipping Industry

How Does Congestion Affect the Choice of Taking Transit or Private Vehicle to Work?

Commuting to work: Results of the 2010 General Social Survey(14 page pdf Martin Turcotte, Statistics Canada, Aug. 24, 2011)

From Canada’s keeper of national statistics comes an analysis of commuting times in cities. Most Canadians choose to drive to work in cars and the commuting times are less than from using public transit. At the same time, dissatisfaction with the delays caused by congestion is much greater from car commuters than transit users and this dissatisfaction increases with the time or distance travelled. Reducing congestion (and commuting times) therefore is a goal worth pursuing in developing improved forms of public transit and encouraging drivers to use it. Although not mentioned in the report, congestion charging appears to be the solution waiting to be exploited from this aspect- as several large cities in other countries have found out.

Key Quotes:

“The larger and more populous the region, the longer it takes to get to work.. average commuting time was longest (30 minutes) in the six largest census metropolitan areas (areas with at least 1 million residents : Toronto, Montréal, Vancouver, Ottawa– Gatineau , Calgary and Edmonton)… the two most populous—Toronto and Montréal—have the longest commuting times (33 minutes and 31 minutes respectively).”

 “in the six largest metropolitan areas, car users took an average of 27 minutes to get to work, while public transit users took 44 minutes.”

 “the use of public transit involves walking, waiting and sometimes traffic congestion, it is not surprising that commuting times are generally longer for public transit users”

“Workers in the greatest metropolitan areas are more likely to experience traffic congestion daily on their way to work (Table 2). In the Toronto CMA, 29% of full-time workers were caught in traffic jams every day of the week, compared with 26% of their counterparts in Montréal and 25% of full-time workers in Vancouver”

“satisfaction with commuting times was high: 39% said they were very satisfied with the amount of time it took to get to work, and another 46% said they were satisfied. This leaves 15% of workers who were dissatisfied with the amount of time required to travel to work.”

“of the 10.6 million car users, just over 2 million felt that public transit would be convenientfor them, while about 8.3 million thought it would be somewhat or very inconvenient”

Related articles

• Are HOT Lanes the Best Way to Introduce Congestion Pricing?
• Where to Find Money for Public Transit?
• Ten cities with the worst traffic
• The London Downtown Congestion Charge After a Decade