Frequently Asked Questions

What's the difference between light, commuter, and high speed rail?  What's BRT? A circulator?
Why do we need more transit? Traffic is frustrating but it's a lot worse in other places.
Why are we talking about more buses when the buses I see are always empty?
How are we going to pay for all this?
Why should we pay for transit when roads are free?

Transit Myths (and Realities)

Myth #1: Rail transit is outdated and ridership is declining.
Myth #2: Light rail fails to attract new transit riders to reduce automobile travel and congestion.
Myth #3: Rail transit is more costly than bus transit. Where transit is needed, buses are better than rail because buses are flexible and cost less.
Myth #4: Rail transit requires excessive land use densities.
Myth #5: Light rail has been a failure everywhere.  The estimated costs always prove too low, and the ridership projections are always too high.
Myth #6:  Rail transit can only serve city centers, but most new jobs are in the suburbs.
Myth #7: Rail transit does not spur economic development.
Myth #8: Transit subsidies exceed automobile subsidies or free market competition and privately operated transit is better.

FAQs

What's the difference between light, commuter, and high speed rail?  What's BRT? A circulator?

You can learn to the difference between all of these terms - and more - by visiting our glossary.  The video from below from TBARTA also helps to visualize the differences between the different transit modes.

Return to top

Why do we need more transit?  Traffic is frustrating but it's a lot worse in other places.

First, there are many more benefits of transit beyond congestion reduction or options to get around congestion.  You can read about those here.

Second, and perhaps more importantly, planning for transit is about planning for the future.  Traffic may not be that bad now, but in five, ten, or twenty years, it will be exponentially worse.  Our region is projected to add more than 1.3 million residents in the next 15 years, putting increidble strain on our transportation network.  Roads alone cannot address this growth, so we need to begin planning now because transit systems take many years to build.

Return to top

Why are we talking about more buses when the buses I see are always empty?

A common criticism of our existing system is that many of the buses are empty.  In some instances, you may see a nearly empty bus because it is near then end of the line and most passengers have already been dropped off.  Empty buses can also be a sign of problems with the system.  In some areas, the buses are simply too large for the area they are serving, and many of the transit agencies in the region are looking to purchase smaller buses to serve these communities.  However, the most important reason for empty buses is the quality of the bus system itself.  When buses don't come often enough, and aren't comfortable and convenient to use, most people won't use them unless they absolutely have to.  Increasing bus frequency and improving bus stops and shelters to make the system easier, safer, and more comfortable for riders can dramatically improve ridership, filling up buses quickly.

Return to top

How are we going to pay for this?

Most people agree that transit is desirable and that improving transit is necessary to improve their community.  Disagreement typically arises over how such improvements should be paid for.  There are many ways to pay for transit improvements.  Most transportation projects are funded by some combination of local, state, and federal dollars.  Some of the projects on this site are being paid for by existing local revenues and federal grants.  In some parts of our region, transit is funded almost exclusively by property taxes.  Declining home values has led to declining revenues for these agencies, putting them in a position of trying to do more with less.  In many cases, improving transit will require new revnue for the agencies, most likely in the form of a new or reallocated tax.  However, leaner times are leading many agencies to get creative and explore partnerships with the private sector to help fund projects. Funding for each project will be different, and as different efforts throughout the region continue to move forward, we will update this question as more information becomes available.

Return to top

Why should we pay for transit when roads are free?

Because of the way roads are funded as opposed to the way transit is funded, most people don't often think about how much a road actually costs.  This leads to a perception that roads are free.  The truth is that roads, just like transit and any other type of infrastructure, are paid for by taxes.  Many people argue that roads are different, because they are paid by a "user fee."  This refers to the fact that most road funding comes from gas taxes, and most gas is used to drive on roads.  However, a recent study showed that at the national level, these "user fees" cover only 51% of the cost of roads.  It's true that not all gas taxes are used for highways (a very small amount goes to transit and to clean-up fuel spills) but even all of this money went to raods, it would still only cover 65% of the cost.  Another study by the Texas Highway Department found that when the amount of traffic that actually uses a specific road is considered, most roads studied generated considerably less than half the revenue in gas taxes needed to pay for themselves. 

Not only are roads not free, but in many places, roads are more expensive to build than transit!  Although this is not the case in many parts of our region, in the most heaviy populated and congested areas, the high cost of land surrounding the existing highway makes widening the road considerably more expensive than investing in transit (which can operate in a much more narrow area).  For example, widening the section of 1-275 that connects downtown Tampa to the Univerity of South Florida Tampa Campus to 12 lanes is projected to cost $2.2 billion or more, and by 2035, the road would still be congested.  The cost to build light rail in the same segment is estimated to cost only $900 million, and can carry more people (source: Hillsborough County MPO). 

Return to top

Transit Myths (and Realities)

Adapted from Weyrich and Lind, Twelve Anti-Transit Myths: A Conservative Critique, The Free Congress Foundation, 2001

Myth #1: Rail transit is outdated and ridership is declining.

Reality:

The source of this myth is simply outdated numbers that do not reflect the most recent data.  There was a time when ridership was declining.  This was caused primarily by government subsidies that favored automobile travel, sprawling development that led to reliance on automobiles, and a lack of available high quality transit.  Under these conditions it is not surprising that the percentage of total trips made by transit fell dramatically as automobile trips soared.

However, in recent years there has been a dramatic turnaround, and transit ridership has grown steadily to reach its highest level in five decades (see below). Between 1995 and 2009, the U.S. population grew by 15%, automobile use (in vehicle miles traveled) grew 21%, and transit ridership grew by 31%. We can expect this trend to continue, as an aging population, rising fuel prices, increased urbanization and changing consumer preferences (especially among young professionals) are increasing demand for alternative ways to travel and for multi-modal development.

(Source: APTA 2010 Public Transportation Fact Book)

It’s important to note that one of the most important reasons for the turnaround is the spread of high quality transit to more cities, usually as light or commuter rail.  In communities that have made this investment, most have experienced high riderhsip and high demand for expanding the service to new areas.

Return to top

Myth #2: Light rail fails to attract new transit riders to reduce automobile travel and congestion.

Reality:

While large cities with transit are certainly still congested, they would undoubtedly be more congested without their transit systems.  Here are the facts that show how transit can and does relieve congestion:

• In 2007, APTA (American Public Transportation Association) found that if transit were unavailable, more than half of rail passengers would travel by automobile, inevitably leading to more congestion.
• Residents of areas with high quality transit drive 23% less, and residents of areas with high quality public transit and mixed land use drive 43% less than elsewhere in the same region (see below).  Again, less driving means less congestion. 
• For a specific example we can look at St. Louis, where MetroLink (their light rail) carried 14.2 million passengers in 1999. About 60% of MetroLink's riders were commuters who would otherwise have taken the highways.  Excluding the approximately 25% who had no car available or did not drive, MetroLink is removing about 12,500 cars from St. Louis's rush hour traffic every day.

Much of the confusion arises from word choice.  “Transit” includes both rail and buses.  Buses have little effect on congestion because they generally serve transit-dependent populations who are unable to drive and would not add to congestion in the bus’s absence. 

Sources:
Litman, T., Evaluating rail transit criticism, Victoria Transport Policy Institute, 2010
Ohland, G. and Poticha, S., Street Smart: Streetcars and Cities in the Twenty-First Century, Reconnecting America, 2006

Return to top

Myth #3: Rail transit is more costly than bus transit. Where transit is needed, buses are better than rail because buses are flexible and cost less.

Reality:

For capital costs, it's true that bus systems are cheaper than rail.  Of course, this completely ignores the cost of building and maintaining the roads that buses travel (roads that are also paid for with tax dollars).  However, once light rail is up and running, the track and the train cars are more durable and less expensive to maintain than a fleet of buses and the roads they travel.  In part, this is because a rail car can last up to 60 years; a bus can last maybe a quarter of that of that time.

The difference in operating costs is even more dramatic.  Buses are significantly more expensive to operate than light rail, and while capital costs are a one-time, up-front investment, operating expenses continue to add up over the lifetime of a system.  The reasons for these differences are many, including the fact that every bus needs one driver, while one driver can pilot a train several cars long.  Light rail also runs on electricity, which is cheaper than gasoline (and also means they can someday be powered by cleaner energy sources like wind and solar).

What about the stated benefit of bus flexibility?  Opponents of rail investment use the term “fixed rail” and criticize rail for having tracks that are difficult to move if “population shifts.”  However, you could just as easily refer to “fixed roads,” and it is most certainly more expensive and difficult to relocate a 6+-lane freeway than it is to move a pair of tracks.  However, the real point is that they wouldn't need to be moved.  One of the advantages of rail, one that is lost when you rely on buses, is the ability to spur development.  This is a key purpose of infrastructure, and is the major reason for it’s positive effect on the local economy.  Just as the presence of highways has directed growth and development, so will does rail transit.

Bus transit has no effect on development, precisely because it is flexible.  It may be here today but could just as easily be gone tomorrow.  However, when it comes to rail, investors can count on it being there next week, next year, and next decade - just like a road.  Other communities who have invested in light rail systems have reaped these benefits. Charlotte experienced $1.87 billion in investment and development along their light rail corridor.  In Phoenix, $5.9 billion in private development and $1.5 billion in (non-rail) public development has been generated along the METRO line since 2001.  A bus-only approach loses these benefits, which are much needed in this down economy.

Sources:
Cambridge Systematics, “Economic Impact of HART: Existing and Future Expansions,” Final Report, July 2010
Weyrich and Lind, Twelve Anti-Transit Myths: A Conservative Critique, The Free Congress Foundation, 2001

Return to top

Myth #4: Rail transit requires excessive land use densities. 

Return to top