<<  <  >  >>

Page 36

light-rail riders would be former bus riders and that rail

construction would attract no more than 2,000 to 10,500 new

transit trips per day over and above low-cost bus alterna-

tives.  Since an urban area of 1 million people typically

generates about 5 million trips per day, combining auto,

transit, and cycling and walking, even 10,500 new transit

riders per day have no significant effect on congestion.

Another measure of rail's effect on congestion is the

share of total trips carried by transit.  About half the

EISs studied estimated this share.  None estimated that

light rail would increase transit's share of traffic by more

than 0.4 percent; most estimates were under 0.3 percent.

Yet light-rail construction would often consume more than

half of a city's total capital funds for transportation.

Many of the EISs explicitly concluded that rail would

not greatly reduce congestion.  For example:

· "Impact of proposed alternatives on congestion: None"

(Twin Cities Central Corridor).

· "Auto travel times will deteriorate significantly

over today's levels by the year 2015 regardless of

whether the no-build or LRT alternative is implemented"

(Denver Southwest Corridor).

· Light rail "does not significantly mitigate conges-

tion on Mississippi River crossings" (East St. Louis

St. Clair County Corridor).

· "On a daily basis the reduction or difference in VMT

between the alternatives is not considered significant"

(Santa Clara County Tasman Corridor).

· "Because travel time savings are minor, mode choice

for downtown work trips [is] relatively insensitive to

transportation improvements in the mid-coast corridor"

(San Diego Mid-Coast Corridor).

· "The traffic analysis did not reveal any substantial

difference in levels of service [congestion] between

the No Build, TSM, and Build Alternatives" (San Diego

East Urban Corridor).

Some of the EISs claimed that reductions in congestion

would be significant even when the data did not support

those claims.  The preferred alternative for the South

Sacramento Corridor "is expected to induce a shift from auto

to transit. . . . Major shifts are predicted for corridor