There were two speakers, Professor Brian Taylor, Ph.D., AICP, Associate Professor and Vice-Chair of Urban Planning, UCLA & Director, UCLA Institute of Transportation Studies and Professor Evelyn Blumenberg, Ph.D. in Urban Planning, UCLA, Associate Professor of Urban Planning. UCLA. Both are here as visiting scholars.

Professor Taylor spoke first and the theme of his presentation was Getting the Most Bang for the Buck: The Political Costs and Economic Benefits of Public Investments in Transportation.

From the point of view considering transit options for Oahu this was by far the more important presentation. Taylor explained the relationship between transit alternatives and the economic and social costs. He also detailed how economists and elected officials tend to see transit projects quite different, often at odds with one another.

Specifically what elected officials see as benefits economists typically see as costs. Rail is perfect example since it is so expensive that it nearly always must be subsidized and costs far more economically in taxes than it benefits the community. Elected officials only focus on the benefits, moving people, and don’t focus on the overall economic benefit or loss.

The main question to ask of any transit project is “Do the benefits outweigh the costs?” A 57.1 percent increase in public transit investment only resulted in an 11 percent increase in transit patronage for the same period. Public transit expenditures are about 20 percent but only comprise 3 percent of all metro trips. Public transit continues to lose market share to private vehicles.

Elected officials like big public transit projects because they are “ribbon cutting” events where they can appear to be “doing something.” However 2/3rds of operating costs and 100 percent of capital costs come from subsidies.

Rail is economically disappointing, projects are typically way over-budget and ridership projections overly optimistic and rarely, if ever, live up to expectations. A major reason for the latter is that in order to access rail most people who exclusive use public transit must take a bus to the station and then transfer to rail. People hate to transfer and every transfer decreases ridership accordingly.

The most interesting point in this presentation was the statement that rail shouldn’t be considered until other forms of transit, especially buses, cannot handle the demand. The analogy was “Why do a heart bypass before you have tried diet and exercise?” Only when High Occupancy Toll lanes and other solutions are maxed out should a city consider the exorbitant cost of rail.

Professor Taylor closed by saying part of the problem of public transit, especially buses, is that there is typically one fare no matter the distance or the time of day. Most affluent riders do so during the peak while lower income riders do so during off-peak hours. By adjusting pricing according to peak usage, using smart cards to charge more during peak hours and less during off hours, there would be a more equitable pricing. This would be desirable to those who advocate public transit for “social equity” reasons.

Professor Blumenberg’s presentation focused on public transit as it affects lower income residents. Since the main solution being considered for Oahu, rail, will mostly service higher income residents, this in-depth exposition was somewhat less relevant. However it did highlight the importance of auto for lower income residents.

She had some startling revelations though. For example, in general, only 13 percent of all auto use is for commuting and one half is for personal reasons. The rest is for other categories such as church or transporting children to events.

Low income riders tend to use the bus in greater numbers while rail typically has a higher income ridership. Even people without cars find a way to use them and 38 percent of people without cars use transit while 39 percent use autos, either by borrowing someone else’s or ride sharing. Autos make up about 60 percent of transportation for lower income residents.

Concerning other issues such as pollution and traffic congestions significantly increasing the number of low income people that currently do not own autos with private vehicles would not significantly impact such “externalities.” The numbers simply aren’t there. But an auto does significantly increase the income of low income people by increasing their employment choices because they are able to avail themselves of jobs over a wider area.

A good portion of Blumenberg’s presentation also concerned the fact that low income residents tend to be either in inner city or rural environments while most new jobs are in the suburbs. This isn’t all that significant because the turnover of existing jobs is far more important than new jobs.

Finally, the best scenario for public transit is where there is a high density of both jobs and workers. Time is also a factor and this works against public transit because on Oahu travel times are 1.8 times longer for public transit than by private vehicle. Professor Blumenberg ended with the point that no matter what solutions are chosen, autos must be considered a major component.

This was an excellent panel discussion and did much to illuminate the nature of the options we are considering here on Oahu. As a community we need to examine very carefully our options and choose the most cost effective solutions, rather than the more glamorous “ribbon cutting” ones. We need to get the biggest bang for our buck.

Don Newman, senior policy analyst for the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, Hawaii's first and only free market public policy institute focused on individual freedom and liberty, can be reached at:mailto:don@grassrootinstitute.org