Studies and empirical data prove solvency – vote aff to massively reduce casualties
Litman 2012 – Victoria Transport Policy Institute (May 25, Todd, “ Safe Travels Evaluating Mobility Management Traffic Safety Impacts ” http://www.vtpi.org/safetrav.pdf)
Public transit is a relatively safe mode, particularly for users, as indicated in Figure 15. 4 Transit passengers have about one-tenth the fatality rate as car occupants, and even considering external risks, transit causes less than half the total deaths per passenger-mile as automobile travel. Total crash rates per passenger-mile (including risks to transit vehicle occupants and other road users) are relatively high in some jurisdictions due to low average transit vehicle occupancies and because a large portion of transit vehicle mileage occurs in congested urban conditions, but as transit ridership increases crash casualty rates per passenger-mile decline. Mobility management strategies that encourage transit ridership and increase average transit vehicle occupancy impose little incremental external risk and reduce crash rates per passenger-mile.
Per capita crash rates tend to decline as transit ridership increases in a community, and are particularly low in cities with large rail transit systems as indicated in figures 15 and 16. Table 9 indicates very low fatality and injury rates for transit passengers in the UK. Lim, et al (2006) describes how Bus Rapid Transit improvements in Seoul, South Korea increased transit ridership more than 20%, but reduced bus casualties by 11% and total traffic crashes by 26%. Multiple regression analysis found that bus accident rates were influenced by factors such as the extent of bus driving experience, driver wages, number of repair personnel, vehicle age, and the ratio of bus exclusive lanes to the length of total bus routes.
Analysis by Karim, Wahba and Sayed (2012) of Vancouver region traffic crash data found that area crash rates decline significantly with bus stop density, percentage of transit-km traveled relative to total vehicle-kms traveled, and walking, biking, and transit commute mode share. Their modeling indicates that a strategic transport plan that encourages use of alternative modes tends to reduce total, severe, and property damage only collisions. These traffic fatality reductions result not just from automobile vehicle-miles shifted to transit passenger-miles, but also from the leverage effects transit can have on transport and land use patterns (Litman 2004). Residents of cities with high quality transit tend to own fewer automobiles, drive less (due to reduced vehicle ownership and more compact and mixed land use patterns), have lower traffic speeds (due to more compact urban development), and have less high-risk driving (for example, teenagers and elderly people may be less likely to have a drivers license and own a vehicle in communities with better travel alternatives). The traffic safety impacts of more accessible land use patterns are discussed in more detail later.
Public transit is way safer – decreases pollution and increases exercise
Litman 2012 - Victoria Transport Policy Institute (January 16, Todd, “ Terrorism, Transit and Public Safety Evaluating the Risks ” http://www.vtpi.org/transitrisk.pdf)
These public transport safety benefits are much larger than deaths and injuries caused by recent terrorist attacks. In addition, public transit provides other health benefits, by reducing air pollution, and increasing physical exercise since most transit trips involve walking or cycling links (Besser and Dannenberg 2005). Although these health benefits are difficult to quantify, they are probably large, indicating far greater total health benefits from transit, and therefore much larger disbenefits when people shift from transit to driving (Litman 2009). Travelers would increase their total risk if they shift from public transportation to more dangerous modes in response to terrorist threats or fear of crashes.
Solvency Extensions - Ridership
Increased government support of mass transit resolves the main reasons people don’t use mass transit
Prum and Catz, 11- * Assistant Professor, The Florida State University AND ** Director, Center for Urban Infrastructure; Research Associate, Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California, Irvine (Darren and Sarah, “GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSION TARGETS AND MASS TRANSIT: CAN THE GOVERNMENT SUCCESSFULLY ACCOMPLISH BOTH WITHOUT A CONFLICT?” 51 Santa Clara L. Rev. 935, 971-972)//
Within the context of transit (and depending on the consumer’s location), the ability to select between viable substitutes becomes an issue where policy makers wish to use transit options as part of an overall greenhouse gas reduction program. Personal freedom and cost play a large role in guiding the consumer’s preferences, but those preferences begin to change when certain population densities and price points make mass transit more competitive with other readily available alternatives.204 In achieving the proper price point for mass transit, the expense of constructing the project and the on-going operational costs can overburden these options, making them unaffordable choices in the consumer’s eyes when other important factors, such as population density, weigh against them.205 However, in these situations, the government can strategically provide financial incentives that can level the opportunity costs and give consumers viable alternatives, despite the drawbacks from other important aspects.206 Thus, a variety of market factors like personal freedom, population density, and cost must reach critical levels whereby consumers are willing to consider meaningful substitute modes; but the financial model for the entity providing the service needs to be viable, with adequate funding from all of its sources.
The plan will stimulate ridership
Bailey, 07- Federal Programs Advisor at the New York City Department of Transportation.(transportation policy analyst http://www.apta.com/resources/reportsandpublications/Documents/apta_public_transportation_fuel_savings_final_010807.pdf)
A final analysis was completed to estimate the effect of an expansion of public transportation service and use. Total ridership, as measured in unlinked trips, was doubled. Growth in public transportation use was assigned to two major sources: improvements to an existing route or system, and extensions and new routes. By conducting an analysis of growth on public transportation systems from 1999 to 2004, the research team found that approximately one-third of ridership growth is associated with improvements to existing routes, while two-thirds has resulted from new routes and modal extensions. The necessary growth in route miles and modal extensions was estimated using recent improvements to public transportation systems in the U.S., using the average increase in ridership relative to the route miles built. Figures from several recent rail and high-quality bus projects were collected directly from public transportation agencies. Most major improvements and extensions to public transportation systems currently operate either light rail, commuter rail, or high-quality bus systems.For households, an increase in the number of route miles served by high-quality public transportation service would increase the total number of households with the option to use public transportation, as well as the total number of employment sites served by public transportation networks. The number of households that would have improved or new public transportation service is estimated using some basic assumptions about the distribution of residences:
• Residential density is assumed to be the average for urbanized areas across the U.S. Current urbanized areas were defined by the 2000 Census, and generally represent cities and suburbs that have a combined population of over 50,000 people. This is a conservative estimate because public transportation alignments are generally targeted to areas that have been zoned and built up at a higher density than other areas in the city.
• The area served by new routes are assumed to overlap with areas served by parallel or nearby routes by 25 percent. Existing public transportation availability was estimated using the NHTS 2001 data. NHTS 2001 staff provided a special data set to the research team that uses the geographic location of each respondent and a 1994 database of bus lines and rail stops to calculate the distance between each respondent and public transportation services. Relative increases in total public transportation route mileage is based on existing services from 2004.
Share with your friends: |