To fight climate change, micromobility is a better option than overpriced transit projects

Thoughtful transit advocates have cautioned about the escalating costs of creating new urban and commuter rail systems in the United States. But the work of the Transit Costs Project and others raises a question that they have been reluctant to answer: have costs now reached the point at which it is time to put down the shovels and find other ways to provide climate-friendly mobility? With the rising popularity of micromobility solutions such as e-bikes and e-scooters, the answer to this question, in many cases, should be yes.

When considering whether an infrastructure project makes sense, it is necessary to consider both costs and benefits. For transit, benefits roughly correspond to the number of riders a project is likely to serve, but to the extent we see transit as a climate solution, we might also wish to consider the number of car trips new infrastructure replaces.

New York and Northern California are the epicenters of project cost escalation, but they have radically different transit usage. The San Francisco Bay Area has almost as many people as New York City, but far smaller transit ridership. While the MTA New York City Transit carried 2.3 billion passengers in 2022, Bay Area transit agencies collectively transported about one-tenth that number of riders.

The Bay Area’s lower population density and lower propensity to use transit translates into more limited benefits for adding transit infrastructure. New York City’s Second Avenue Subway Phase II project is ultimately expected to carry 36 million passengers annually at a construction cost of $7.7 billion. By contrast, the Bay Area Rapid Transit extension through downtown San Jose has expected annual ridership of just 9.5 million, while costing $12.2 billion.

One might argue that the San Jose transit is still justified as a long-term investment. For example, if the ridership projection holds up, the BART extension can be expected to carry close to 3 billion riders over 30 years at a capital cost of $4 each. But this analysis excludes BART’s relatively high operating costs per passenger.

Nor does it discount benefits in the distant future. If the BART extension starts operating in 2036 as planned, it won’t carry its three billionth passenger until the late 2060s. That is much later than many climate experts think we need to achieve net zero to avoid the worst impacts of climate change.

But if San Jose and other Bay Area cities can encourage more individuals to replace some or all their gasoline-powered car trips with ones using electric vehicles, they can achieve immediate climate benefits. This is already happening: in Santa Clara County (which includes San Jose), more than four out of ten new vehicles sold are electric. And by the time BART trains are supposed to start running through San Jose, California will have banned sales of new internal combustion cars.

Critics argue that electric cars are not an environmental panacea because their production is resource intensive, they occupy a lot of space, and some of their components are difficult to recycle. Transit proponents would prefer to dissuade travelers from owning cars or SUVs entirely by improving the density of bus and rail networks and increasing the frequency of service.

Improving micromobility is another way to reduce car trips and encourage some to go car-free. And, since light e-bikes and e-scooters use less electricity than electric cars, they reduce greenhouse gas emissions to the extent that local power is generated from fossil fuels, in all or in part.

An individual running an errand on an e-scooter uses less resources and less space than one running that same errand in Tesla’s Cybertruck. And the e-scooter user can bring his or her ride onto a bus or train, making it a convenient first- and last-mile solution. Or, for those that prefer to rent, e-scooter and e-bike docking stations at transit stations also facilitate completing a trip without a car or taxi.

Technology improvements are driving increased use of shared micromobility services from Lime, Lyft and others. In New York City, the 3.7 million rides on Lyft’s Citibike system in October 2023 represented a 27 percent increase over October 2022 ridership. Uptake in the Bay Area does not appear to be as high, perhaps due to the lack of a unified system like Citibike. Some Bay Area cities have Lyft and/or Lime docking stations, while others have none.

Aside from rolling out to more cities, companies and governments can do more to increase the use of micromobility solutions. For example, older people may be reluctant to use bikes and scooters due to balance concerns. It is now possible to purchase three-wheeled e-trikes online, but they are not yet available from the shared micromobility providers. 

State and local governments can help by adopting uniform, light-touch regulation of micromobility products and services. While Florida treats e-scooters like bicycles, Illinois regulates them like motorcycles, requiring licensing, registration, and insurance for privately owned vehicles. Some states and cities (perhaps wisely) restrict the use of e-scooters on sidewalks, but do not provide sufficient protected lanes that allow riders to avoid cars.

Optimizing regulations and creating adequate lanes for micromobility vehicles require effort and money, but the cost is a small fraction of that needed to extend urban rail systems. And micromobility promises immediate greenhouse gas emission reductions, rather than the deferred benefits provided by rail extensions. Especially in places like San Jose where subway ridership is expected to be limited, encouraging micromobility is a far more cost-effective option.

Marc Joffe is a federalism and state policy analyst at the Cato Institute.