2004Unpublished venueRequires access

Comprehensive Evaluation of Rail Transit Benefits

Todd Litman, Todd Alexander Litman

Open publisher page 3 citations

Abstract

This report evaluates rail transit benefits based on a comprehensive analysis of urban transportation system performance in major U.S. cities. It discusses best practices for evaluating transit benefits. It finds that cities with larger, well-established rail systems have significantly higher per capita transit ridership, lower average per capita vehicle ownership and mileage, less traffic congestion, lower traffic death rates and lower consumer transportation expenditures than otherwise comparable cities. This indicates that rail transit systems can provide a variety of economic, social and environmental benefits, and benefits tend to increase as a system expands and matures. This analysis indicates that rail investments can be a cost effective way to improve urban transport. Parking, vehicle and congestion cost savings from rail transit are estimated to exceed total U.S. public transit subsidies. It critiques Great Rail Disasters (O’Toole, 2004), a report which argued that rail transit systems fail to achieve their objectives and are not cost effective. It finds that many claims in Great Rail Disasters are inaccurate, based on

About this research paper

What this paper is about

This report evaluates rail transit benefits based on a comprehensive analysis of urban transportation system performance in major U.S. cities. It discusses best practices for evaluating transit benefits. It finds that cities with larger, well-established rail systems have significantly higher per capita transit ridership, lower average per capita vehicle ownership and mileage, less traffic congestion, lower traffic death rates and lower consumer transportation expenditures than otherwise comparable cities. This indicates that rail transit systems can provide a variety of economic, social and environmental benefits, and benefits tend to increase as a system expands and matures. This analysis indicates that rail investments can be a cost effective way to improve urban transport. Parking, vehicle and congestion cost savings from rail transit are estimated to exceed total U.S. public transit subsidies. It critiques Great Rail Disasters (O’Toole, 2004), a report which argued that rail transit systems fail to achieve their objectives and are not cost effective. It finds that many claims in Great Rail Disasters are inaccurate, based on

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 3 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

This report evaluates rail transit benefits based on a comprehensive analysis of urban transportation system performance in major U.S. cities. It discusses best practices for evaluating transit benefits. It finds that cities with larger, well-established rail systems have significantly higher per capita transit ridership, lower average per capita vehicle ownership and mileage, less traffic congestion, lower traffic death rates and lower consumer transportation expenditures than otherwise comparable cities. This indicates that rail transit systems can provide a variety of economic, social and environmental benefits, and benefits tend to increase as a system expands and matures. This analysis indicates that rail investments can be a cost effective way to improve urban transport. Parking, vehicle and congestion cost savings from rail transit are estimated to exceed total U.S. public transit subsidies. It critiques Great Rail Disasters (O’Toole, 2004), a report which argued that rail transit systems fail to achieve their objectives and are not cost effective. It finds that many claims in Great Rail Disasters are inaccurate, based on

Key concepts: Transport engineering, Subsidy, Public transport, Per capita, Traffic congestion, Transit (satellite), Business, Cost–benefit analysis

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Comprehensive Evaluation of Rail Transit Benefits — Research Paper | ScholarLens