Posted on 07/27/2006 7:45:25 AM PDT by SmithL
The Bay Area's recent six days of free public transit during hot, smoggy summer commutes were popular, but whether the Spare the Air program justified its hefty price tag is up for debate.
The Metropolitan Transportation Commission, the region's transit planning and funding agency, spent about $13 million to compensate transit agencies for lost fare revenue during those six days in June and July.
Yet there is no clear way to measure whether the increase in transit ridership resulted in less air pollution.
One goal of the program -- getting more people to ride public transit -- clearly worked. Every participating transit agency in the region reported a big bump in passengers -- more than 1 million additional riders in total.
Whether that translates into long-term ridership gains has yet to be seen, however.
And the twin goal of cutting down on pollution in order to lower smog levels and meet federal air quality standards is not being tracked in a way that shows whether the program is working.
For one thing, officials do not know how many people taking advantage of the free rides were regular commuters or just tourists and day-trippers. For another, smog measurements do not accurately reflect whether fewer vehicle emissions caused a significant reduction in air pollution or whether the lower smog levels were coincidental based on other factors such as variable temperatures and wind.
Even some MTC board members are skeptical about whether the ridership counts are accurate and whether the program is worth the expense, although none has ever voted not to fund it.
"If it cuts (smog) on bad days, yes, it's money well spent," said Sue Lempert, who represents the cities of San Mateo County on the commission. "I still think it's very expensive."
Bay Area residents ought to be prepared to chip in for the collective good, she said.
"We're going to see more and more and more (Spare the Air days). I think people have to bite the bullet and do what's right on their own."
Specific air quality levels on this year's six Spare the Air days will not be quantified until the fall, but commission staff members reported Wednesday that on two of the six days, the region avoided violating federal clean air standards.
Last year during the one free morning commute offered, drivers logged about 64,270 fewer vehicle miles, which led to a 226-pound reduction in the emissions that cause smog, according to the commission. The cost per pound for that reduction was $2,900.
A preliminary report presented to the commission shows this summer's program attracted more than 9 million people to mass transit during the six free Spare the Air days.
But the big numbers also led to some problems. BART's police force, for example, fielded 200 to 400 calls from passengers complaining about unruly behavior during the free transit days. That is twice as many as usual, said BART spokesman Linton Johnson.
"Overall, the program was a success on BART, but there are some visible things that need to be tweaked," he said.
"How do we handle the influx of kids who get on BART and, kids being kids, they're up to a lot of antics and sometimes those antics either scare off our regular customers or annoy them. If free transit means we are driving away the regular commuters, then obviously that defeats the whole idea of the program."
Despite the criticisms, however, the program is popular with the commission, the transit agencies and activists trying to get people out of their cars.
"We shouldn't underplay the value of marketing and the potential for getting new riders. It shouldn't just be purely based on emissions (reductions)," said Stuart Cohen, executive director of the Transportation and Land Use Coalition.
"Even if you get 500 new people riding BART over time, that can turn into a tremendous economic return for BART over the course of a few years," he said.
Also, free transit days have an important "intangible" benefit, he said. "It really reinforced in people's minds the relationship between their transportation habits and our environment. A lot of people getting into their cars understood they were doing something that was degrading the environment."
Commissioner Mark DeSaulnier, a Contra Costa County supervisor, said he is going to work with the region's business organizations to try to get private contributions as a way of expanding the program, which would help remove cars from the region's clogged freeways and provide more information to planners about how the program helps clean the air.
"This is an investment cost. You've got to do it to start to find data to quantify what are we getting for this," he said. "Not just ridership, but also public health."
Others go further.
Commissioners Scott Haggerty, an Alameda County supervisor, and Tom Ammiano, a supervisor from San Francisco, have proposed expanding the six-day program to 365 days -- although cost and funding for such a massive endeavor has yet to be discussed.
"I think the free transit idea should be explored on a trial basis," Haggerty said.
Cost? What cost?
Just declare it to be FREE!
Not to mention when they put the message up on the freeway bulletin boards, it slows traffic to a stop and creates MORE smog.
Sez Sue Lempert, self-important person.
I wonder if Sue has kids. After all, committing such an act (adding more people, i.e. "polluters", to the world) is probably the most "environmentally incorrect" act a person could commit. I wonder if Sue bit that bullet for the common good?
Are their transit busses the standard diesel-powered sort, spewing particulates, SOx, and NOx like crazy, and probably also venting their crankcases straight to the atmosphere (like many I have seen)? I mean, a lot of modern cars produce exhaust that is essentially cleaner than the air that it takes in, although of course not everyone has a newish car in a perfect state of tune.
Really?
I took advantage of this freebie and used Bart for the first time to go to the airport. The potential savings was attractive. I was going on a seven day trip and parking is $14.00/day, so I could have saved over $100.00 (adding in tolls and gas).
We left the house at 8:15 AM, drove to Pleasant Hill Bart station and after two transfers (one in SF, on at SFO) I arrived at SFO at 10:30 AM.
The basic experience was OK, but far longer then expected and far longer then if I had driven. Given the choice, it is not going to be a priority to repeat that adventure.
I did that from Berkeley, and lugging a couple of pieces of baggage through BART, then the airport tram, then through a maze of parking lots and elevators, is not a terrific experience. However, air travel is not a terrific experience in the first place anyway, so it was probably a net improvement over taking a car.
If they're running the buses/trains regularly at less than full utilization, then the marginal cost per added rider is only the additional fuel usage caused by the added weight.
Sorry to bother you. I'm looking for a Michael Pelletier that lived in Atlanta GA during the 70's.
Thanks in advance,
Taylor Lumpkin
Please google me or visit hire-experience.com for a phone-no.
Who cares? The amount of smog reduction caused by getting a person to take the bus instead of driving is the same in either case.
I'd say that they might as well fret about not knowing how many blondes, brunettes, and red-heads took the rides, but I wouldn't want to give the pointy-headed bureaucrats any more ideas on ways to waste their time on the public dime.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.