Public transit not the solution to Austin’s traffic problem
COST Commentary: Immediately below is the article, edited to reduce length, as published in the Austin Business Journal. Following this published version is the longer ‘submitted version’ with a few additional points.
It is a coincidence that this op-ed was published the same day as the somewhat related and excellent article by Ashley Sanchez, next on this web site, was published in the Austin American Statesman.
______________________________________________________________________________
By Jim Skaggs
Published in the Austin Business Journal, February 22, 2013
Much of the article “Do we have what it takes to curb traffic troubles?” from the Feb. 8-14 issue is misleading and lacks inclusion and coverage of key points. I offer these comments for consideration.
There is not a unique “Texas psyche” or even U.S. psyche regarding transportation. People all over the world react in a similar manner. Greater mobility has always been directly related to higher quality of life. When it comes to mobility and access to opportunity and life’s offerings, no other transportation form can compete with private vehicles. Constraining one to the limits of public transit results in reduced quality of life.
Working at home has been the fastest growing commute mode in the nation for some time. Excluding New York City, working at home exceeds public transit commuting. There are cost-effective opportunities to remove peak hour traffic from roads by increasing the work-at-home •population. The vast majority of these folks have private vehicle alternatives and are removed from the roads. However, a major portion of those riding public transit are not removed from the roads because they have no alternatives. This is a major reason why spending huge amounts to subsidize those with vehicle alternatives often degrades overall transit, further burdening and limiting those who do not have alternatives.
The highly touted traffic solution to build the city “compactly and efficiently” achieves the exact opposite: greater density creates greater congestion. Increasing density and replacing road capacity with little-used transit trains will increase congestion and discourage downtown trips. Ultimately, employers will move from downtown to provide customer access.
I’d also point out that there are no examples of cities which have achieved Imagine Austin’s stated transportation goals using trains.
The Imagine Austin plan seems to be driven by inexperienced, ideological and some self-serving individuals. Its foundation to discourage use of private transportation and move people to public transit will fail as it has in numerous cities.
Dallas, Houston and Austin have spent billions – mostly on some form of rail – over the past dozen years to increase the use of public transit. Actual public transit use has declined in all three cities. San Antonio’s public transit use is up slightly – down from a percentage measure – and it has spent zero on trains .
Effective transportation solutions cannot be implemented with 50 percent of the transportation dollars being allocated to high cost, public transit that carries only about 1 percent of the region’s passenger miles.
JIM SKAGGS is a transportation activist and retired CEO of Tracor Inc.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Austin’s Transportation Plan is Not the Solution to Austin’s Traffic Problem (Unedited)
by Jim Skaggs
Much of ABJ’s, Feb. 8-14, feature article on transportation, Do we have what it takes to curb traffic troubles? is misleading and inaccurate in its facts and it lacks inclusion and coverage of key points. I offer these comments for consideration.
The article’s data seems to be a mixture of sources covering different geographic areas. Why not use official census data and define when data relates to the City of Austin or to the five county Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) which is more than double Austin’s population?
What is the source of the articles: 150 people and 70 new cars per day moving to Austin? Official data does not support these statistics. Counting only 260 week days per year, about 150 people per day moved to the, much faster growing, five county MSA in 2011; but, not to Austin city.
The first paragraph states incorrectly that a “majority” of the daily 436,500 workers living in Austin are “heading downtown.” Many workers heading to downtown Austin do not live in the city of Austin. Only about 20% (or less) of the total MSA workers travel downtown, using a very liberal definition of downtown. The Central Business District (CBD), Zip 78701, employment is a smaller number. Reports from the Austin Chamber have significantly exaggerated the number of downtown area workers, current and projected.
The average downtown (CBD) employment for major U.S. cities is about 10%. Austin’s is a little higher due to State and UT employees, but, continues to decrease. The suburbs in Williamson and Hays Counties and the entire five-county MSA are growing in population and jobs significantly faster than Austin city.
There is not a unique “Texas psyche” or even US psyche regarding transportation. People all over the world react in a similar manner. Greater mobility has always been directly related to higher quality of life. No other transportation form is competitive with the mobility and access to opportunity and life’s offerings which private vehicles offer. Constraining one to the limits of public transit results in reduced quality of life.
‘Working at home’ has been the fastest growing “commute mode” in the nation for some time. Excluding New York city, working at home exceeds transit commuting. There are cost-effective opportunities to remove peak hour traffic from roadways by increasing the ‘work at home’ population. The vast majority of these folks have private vehicle alternatives and are removed from the roadways. However, a major portion of those riding public transit are not removed from the roadways because they have no alternatives. This is a major reason spending huge amounts to subsidize those with vehicle alternatives often degrades overall transit, further burdening and limiting those who do not have alternatives.
The highly touted traffic solution to build the city “compactly and efficiently” achieves the exact opposite: Greater density creates greater congestion. While driving per capita can be slightly decreased by density, the population increase overwhelms the slight driving/capita reduction, increasing driving per square mile and congestion. ‘Imagine Austin’ goals threaten major downtown setbacks. Increasing density and replacing roadway capacity with little used transit trains will increase congestion and discourage downtown trips. Ultimately, employers will move from downtown to provide customer access. Downtown’s population is unlikely to support retail, restaurants, etc. which residents wish. If it is not convenient for other than downtown residents to travel downtown, they will not.
“High Capacity” transit (rail) is not a solution to congestion or downtown viability. In fact, it is not really high capacity. There are no examples of cities which have achieved Imagine Austin’s stated transportation goals using trains.
The ‘Imagine Austin’ plan seems to be driven by inexperienced, ideological and some self- serving individuals. Its foundation to discourage use of private transportation and move people to public transit will fail as proven again and again in numerous cities. There are no successful models. The tragic outcomes are: 1) Those who need transit the most, and have no alternatives, pay more and their service is reduced. 2) Taxpayers highly subsidize very few transit riders, who mostly have choices and congestion is increased, not decreased. 3) Overall community mobility and quality of life will greatly suffer as funds are siphoned from roadway mobility improvements to subsidize ineffective transit for a few people with alternatives.
As demonstrated by Austin’s Commuter Rail, costs are much more than projected to construct and operate, resulting in taxpayers subsidizing each daily, two-way rider about $20,000 per year. There is no measurable impact on congestion or other societal benefits.
Another indication of this path’s failure: The cities of Dallas, Houston and Austin have spent billions (mostly on some form of rail) over the past dozen years to increase the use of public transit. Actual public transit use has declined in all three cities. San Antonio’s public transit use is up slightly (down from a percentage measure) and it has spent zero on trains.
Effective transportation solutions cannot be implemented with 50% of the transportation dollars being allocated to high cost, public transit which carries only about 1% of the region’s passenger miles. Successful transportation to serve growing populations must be based strongly on peoples mobility needs and choices, requiring roadway improvements to better serve private and public transportation.
Austin and other major Texas cities have been fortunate to enjoy economic success fostered by affordability. Unfortunately, Austin’s affordability is declining rapidly as it follows the path of many west coast cities: Increasing regulations and ill-advised development and transportation plans are rapidly increasing taxes, fees and living costs; resulting in greater burdens on citizens, especially lower income, and reducing overall quality of life.