IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/rff/dpaper/dp-06-21.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Transit in Washington, D.C.: Current Benefits and Optimal Level of Provision

Author

Listed:
  • Nelson, Peter

    () (Resources for the Future)

  • Bagliano, Andrew
  • Harrington, Winston

    () (Resources for the Future)

  • Safirova, Elena

    () (Resources for the Future)

  • Lipman, Abram

Abstract

The discrepancy between transit’s large share of local transportation resources and its generally low share of local trips has raised questions about the use of scarce transportation funds for this purpose. We use a regional transport model consistent with utility theory and calibrated for the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area to estimate the travel benefits of the local transit system to transit users and the congestion-reduction benefits to motorists. We find that (i) rail transit generates congestion-reduction benefits that exceed rail subsidies; (ii) the combined benefits of rail and bus transit easily exceed local transit subsidies generally; (iii) the lowest-income group receives a disproportionately low share of the transit benefits, both in absolute terms and as a share of total income; and (iv) for practical purposes, the scale of the current transit system is about optimal.

Suggested Citation

  • Nelson, Peter & Bagliano, Andrew & Harrington, Winston & Safirova, Elena & Lipman, Abram, 2006. "Transit in Washington, D.C.: Current Benefits and Optimal Level of Provision," Discussion Papers dp-06-21, Resources For the Future.
  • Handle: RePEc:rff:dpaper:dp-06-21
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.rff.org/RFF/documents/RFF-DP-06-21.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sergio R. Jara-Díaz & Antonio Gschwender, 2003. "From the Single Line Model to the Spatial Structure of Transit Services: Corridors or Direct?," Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, University of Bath, vol. 37(2), pages 261-277, May.
    2. Mohring, Herbert, 1972. "Optimization and Scale Economies in Urban Bus Transportation," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 62(4), pages 591-604, September.
    3. De Borger, Bruno & Wouters, Sandra, 1998. "Transport externalities and optimal pricing and supply decisions in urban transportation: a simulation analysis for Belgium," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(2), pages 163-197, March.
    4. Small, Kenneth A. & Gomez-Ibanez, Jose A., 1999. "Urban transportation," Handbook of Regional and Urban Economics, in: P. C. Cheshire & E. S. Mills (ed.), Handbook of Regional and Urban Economics, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 46, pages 1937-1999, Elsevier.
    5. Baum-Snow, Nathaniel & Kahn, Matthew E., 2000. "The effects of new public projects to expand urban rail transit," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 77(2), pages 241-263, August.
    6. Safirova, Elena & Gillingham, Kenneth & Parry, Ian & Nelson, Peter & Harrington, Winston & Mason, David, 2004. "8. Welfare And Distributional Effects Of Road Pricing Schemes For Metropolitan Washington Dc," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(1), pages 179-206, January.
    7. Bento, Antonio M. & Cropper, Maureen L. & Mobarak, Ahmed Mushfiq & Vinha, Katja, 2003. "The impact of urban spatial structure on travel demand in the United States," Policy Research Working Paper Series 3007, The World Bank.
    8. Bertaud, Alain, 2003. "Clearing the air in Atlanta: transit and smart growth or conventional economics?," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 54(3), pages 379-400, November.
    9. Phil Goodwin & Joyce Dargay & Mark Hanly, 2003. "Elasticities of Road Traffic and Fuel Consumption with Respect to Price and Income: A Review," Transport Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 24(3), pages 275-292, September.
    10. Ian W. H. Parry & Kenneth A. Small, 2005. "Does Britain or the United States Have the Right Gasoline Tax?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 95(4), pages 1276-1289, September.
    11. Lam, William H. K. & Cheung, Chung-Yu & Lam, C. F., 1999. "A study of crowding effects at the Hong Kong light rail transit stations," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 33(5), pages 401-415, June.
    12. Harry J. Holzer & John M. Quigley & Steven Raphael, 2003. "Public transit and the spatial distribution of minority employment: Evidence from a natural experiment," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(3), pages 415-441.
    13. Kurt Van Dender & Stef Proost, 2001. "Optimal urban transport pricing with congestion and economies of density," Energy, Transport and Environment Working Papers Series ete0119, KU Leuven, Department of Economics - Research Group Energy, Transport and Environment.
    14. Wardman, Mark, 2004. "Public transport values of time," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 11(4), pages 363-377, October.
    15. Gerard de Jong & Hugh Gunn, 2001. "Recent Evidence on Car Cost and Time Elasticities of Travel Demand in Europe," Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, University of Bath, vol. 35(2), pages 137-160, May.
    16. Taylor, Brian D. & Fink, Camille N.Y., 2003. "The Factors Influencing Transit Ridership: A Review and Analysis of the Ridership Literature," University of California Transportation Center, Working Papers qt3xk9j8m2, University of California Transportation Center.
    17. Kain, John F. & Liu, Zvi, 1999. "Secrets of success: assessing the large increases in transit ridership achieved by Houston and San Diego transit providers," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 33(7-8), pages 601-624.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    Keywords

    transit; transit subsidies; external transit benefits;

    JEL classification:

    • R40 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - Transportation Economics - - - General
    • R41 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - Transportation Economics - - - Transportation: Demand, Supply, and Congestion; Travel Time; Safety and Accidents; Transportation Noise

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:rff:dpaper:dp-06-21. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Webmaster). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/degraus.html .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.