Friday, February 06, 2009
King of Prussia BID
Economic stimulus has been hotly debated in Washington D.C. for the past week, and will most likely carry over into the next. Regardless of the final economic stimulus bill, one thing is certain, more stimulus money will go to roadway coonstruction than to transit. Critics argue that direct infrastructure investments provide for more jobs and greater impact on the economy. However, a new study by the Victoria Transport Policy Institute finds that over the long term, improving alternative modes of transportation (walking, cycling, and public transit) tends to create additional long-term economic savings and benefits.
The study looks mainly at the debate between urban highway expansion and those who advocate for investments in alternative modes of transportation. Highway expansion advocates tend to mainly on traffic congestion reduction, and ignore the negative effects of additional vehicle travel and automobile-oriented land development (sprawl). Advocates of alternative transportation tend to look at a wider range of impacts, including traffic congestion reduction, parking cost savings, accident reductions, improved mobility for non-drivers, and energy conservation.
One of the major reasons that transit can provide for greater economic stimulus now then ever before is the growing percentage of the population that is using transit. Motor vehicle ownership in the U.S. grew exponentially in the 20th Century, however this growth stopped around the year 2000 and has since declined slightly, as the market has become saturated. Over the last 10 years, transit travel has grown 24%, while vehicle miles traveled (VMT) has only increased 10%. Transit ridership growth has been due to a number of factors: rising fuel prices, changing population demographics, increasing urbanization, and increasing health and environmental concerns. While transit ridership only accounts for 2% of total U.S. trips, it serves a much larger portion of urban travel. In the Interstate 95 Corridor, transit serves large portions of peak hour urban travel in cities like New York City (55%), Washington D.C. (40%), Boston (30%), and Philadelphia (30%). These peak hour commuter trips provide relatively inexpensive travel to a large share of the working population in these major industrial centers. Transit's share is even higher to large commercial centers, increasing its economic impact. The transit agencies in these cities are also major employers, and can be just as vital to the regions they serve as any DOT, engineering firm, or contractor.
The study provides for an in-depth cost/benefit analysis of highway construction and increased alternative transportation. The analysis involves looking at the direct and indirect effects of increasing roadway capacity from a financial, social, and environmental perspective. Much of the traditional thoughts on increased capacity are challenged. Though the study concedes that traffic congestion will never disappear, even with the best alternative transportation system, high-quality grade separated public transit can attract people who would otherwise drive on more congested roadways. To read the full study, entitled Smart Transportation Economic Stimulation click here.
The study looks mainly at the debate between urban highway expansion and those who advocate for investments in alternative modes of transportation. Highway expansion advocates tend to mainly on traffic congestion reduction, and ignore the negative effects of additional vehicle travel and automobile-oriented land development (sprawl). Advocates of alternative transportation tend to look at a wider range of impacts, including traffic congestion reduction, parking cost savings, accident reductions, improved mobility for non-drivers, and energy conservation.
One of the major reasons that transit can provide for greater economic stimulus now then ever before is the growing percentage of the population that is using transit. Motor vehicle ownership in the U.S. grew exponentially in the 20th Century, however this growth stopped around the year 2000 and has since declined slightly, as the market has become saturated. Over the last 10 years, transit travel has grown 24%, while vehicle miles traveled (VMT) has only increased 10%. Transit ridership growth has been due to a number of factors: rising fuel prices, changing population demographics, increasing urbanization, and increasing health and environmental concerns. While transit ridership only accounts for 2% of total U.S. trips, it serves a much larger portion of urban travel. In the Interstate 95 Corridor, transit serves large portions of peak hour urban travel in cities like New York City (55%), Washington D.C. (40%), Boston (30%), and Philadelphia (30%). These peak hour commuter trips provide relatively inexpensive travel to a large share of the working population in these major industrial centers. Transit's share is even higher to large commercial centers, increasing its economic impact. The transit agencies in these cities are also major employers, and can be just as vital to the regions they serve as any DOT, engineering firm, or contractor.
The study provides for an in-depth cost/benefit analysis of highway construction and increased alternative transportation. The analysis involves looking at the direct and indirect effects of increasing roadway capacity from a financial, social, and environmental perspective. Much of the traditional thoughts on increased capacity are challenged. Though the study concedes that traffic congestion will never disappear, even with the best alternative transportation system, high-quality grade separated public transit can attract people who would otherwise drive on more congested roadways. To read the full study, entitled Smart Transportation Economic Stimulation click here.
0 comments:
Post a Comment