Blog

Todd Litman of the Victoria Transport Policy Institute, a Canadian research organization, came out with an interesting new study (PDF) that makes a strong pocketbook case for high-quality public transit.

The study looked at seven major U.S. cities with high-quality public transit systems: Washington, D.C., New York, Boston, San Francisco, Chicago, Philadelphia, and Baltimore.

The study’s findings shouldn’t surprise public transit aficionados. According to Litman, residents of cities with good public transit tend to own 10-30 percent fewer vehicles and drive 10-30 percent less than they would in more automobile-oriented communities.

But the study also calculated what exactly good public transit meant for residents’ wallets:

[P]roviding high quality public transit service typically requires about $268 in annual subsidies and $108 in additional fares per capita, but reduces vehicle, parking and road costs an average of $1,040 per capita. For an average household this works out to $775 annually in additional public transit expenses and $2,350 in vehicle, parking and roadway savings, or $1,575 in overall net savings…[emphasis added]

Those results don’t even take into account the other benefits a city can derive from a high-functioning transit system: a decrease in pollution, less congestion, fewer traffic accidents, and improved public fitness and health.

What’s striking about Litman’s study is that its conclusions are something that transit-using city-dwellers tend to grasp intuitively. Commuters know firsthand the benefits of not having to rely on a car to get around the city — not having to deal with parking, congestion, gas, upkeep and insurance costs, etc.

But as Litman points out, most American cities offer only basic public transit services that are used mainly by people who have no other alternatives. In cities with good public transit, even affluent residents use the system, as they recognize its benefits. It all points to a fairly obvious upshot: cities should place public transit higher on its list of funding priorities.

Studies like Litman’s also bring up another important dimension in all this: political will. Americans love their cars but — especially in tough economic times — would they love them as much if they were informed that a strong alternative would save them an average of $1,500 a year? Something tells me a citizenry informed of the considerable savings from a good Metro or bus system could be nudged toward supporting more robust funding for a well-developed transit infrastructure.