Current Benefits and Optimal Level of Provision

The discrepancy between transit’s large share of local transportation resources and its generally low share of local trips has raised questions about the use of scarce transportation funds for this purpose. We use a regional transport model consistent with utility theory and calibrated for the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area to estimate the travel benefits of the local transit system to transit users and the congestion-reduction benefits to motorists. We find that (i) rail transit generates congestion-reduction benefits that exceed rail subsidies; (ii) the combined benefits of rail and bus transit easily exceed local transit subsidies generally; (iii) the lowest-income group receives a disproportionately low share of the transit benefits, both in absolute terms and as a share of total income; and (iv) for practical purposes, the scale of the current transit system is about optimal.

[1]  B. Taylor,et al.  The Factors Influencing Transit Ridership: A Review and Analysis of the Ridership Literature , 2003 .

[2]  W. Vickrey.  Optimal transit subsidy policy , 1980 .

[3]  B. Borger,et al.  Transport externalities and optimal pricing and supply decisions in urban transportation: a simulation analysis for Belgium , 1998 .

[4]  M. Cropper,et al.  The Impact of Urban Spatial Structure on Travel Demand in the United States , 2003 .

[5]  Mark A. Delucchi,et al.  The Annualized Social Cost of Motor Vehicle Use in the U.S.-Based on 1990–1991 Data: Summary of Theory, Data, Methods, and Results , 1997 .

[6]  William H. K. Lam,et al.  A study of crowding effects at the Hong Kong light rail transit stations , 1999 .

[7]  P. Goodwin,et al.  Elasticities of Road Traffic and Fuel Consumption with Respect to Price and Income: A Review , 2004 .

[8]  D. Schrank,et al.  THE 2004 URBAN MOBILITY REPORT , 2002 .

[9]  K. Small,et al.  Does Britain or the United States Have the Right Gasoline Tax , 2005 .

[10]  Moshe Ben-Akiva,et al.  Recent Evidence on Car Cost and Time Elasticities of Travel Demand in Europe , 2001 .

[11]  John L. Renne,et al.  Socioeconomics of Urban Travel: Evidence from the 2001 NHTS , 2003 .

[12]  H. Mohring.  Optimization and Scale Economies in Urban Bus Transportation , 1972 .

[13]  PARETO-OPTIMAL URBAN TRANSPORTATION EQUILIBRIA , 1983 .

[14]  C. Winston,et al.  On the social desirability of urban rail transit systems , 2007 .

[15]  D. Lewis,et al.  Policy and Planning as Public Choice: Mass Transit in the United States , 1999 .

[16]  David A. Hensher.  Establishing A Fare Elasticity Regime for Urban Passenger Transport: Non- Concession Commuters , 1997 .

[17]  S Hepburn,et al.  NEW REVIEW OF AUSTRALIAN TRAVEL DEMAND ELASTICITIES , 1993 .

[18]  John F. Kain,et al.  Secrets of success: assessing the large increases in transit ridership achieved by Houston and San Diego transit providers , 1999 .

[19]  Matthew E. Kahn,et al.  The effects of new public projects to expand urban rail transit , 2000 .

[20]  Steven Raphael,et al.  Public Transit and the Spatial Distribution of Minority Employment: Evidence from a Natural Experiment , 2003 .

[21]  P. Goodwin.  A REVIEW OF NEW DEMAND ELASTICITIES WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO SHORT AND LONG RUN EFFECTS OF PRICE CHANGES , 1992 .

[22]  Chad Shirley,et al.  Alternate Route: Toward Efficient Urban Transportation , 1998 .