Bridging the Transportation Gap

Americans tend to think about transportation in competitive terms: freeways versus subways, cars versus buses, rails versus airports. Certainly, the debate on economic stimulus spending has been argued along these lines. While state representatives and industrial groups advocate for "shovel-ready" projects such as new roads, bridges and tunnels, city planners and environmentalists tend to support investments in mass transit and rail. This divide -- each mode of transportation with its own advocates, all fighting for funding -- is not inevitable. As the Obama administration and the American people prepare to embark on a new wave of major public works initiatives, it's more pressing than ever that we take advantage of our opportunity to fix a fragmented system.

Our messy transportation infrastructure is the result of a century of public policy, built right into the structure of transportation agencies at all levels. When the government agency overseeing mass transit and the government agency building highways in the same place are distinct and uncoordinated, they compete for money, and the public loses. It becomes less about getting there quickly and easily, and more about which interest group wins. The common belief that it's "unfair" for drivers to help pay for mass transportation, even when it reduces traffic congestion, reflects the way we manage transportation.

In a few cases, transportation policy has taken a different path, and the pragmatic need for mobility and access -- to get around easily at a low cost -- has led to an effective bridging of different types of transportation. It's no coincidence that where this happened we have the most extensive mass transportation systems in the United States today: metropolitan New York and the San Francisco Bay Area.

Since the 1950s, tolls from the Bay Bridge in the San Francisco Bay Area have supported the region's rapid transit system, including paying for a three-mile underwater tube for commuter trains. In 1969, revenue from the Golden Gate Bridge was dedicated to supporting buses and ferries. And as congestion worsened, voters began to understand the compelling relationship between traffic relief on local bridges and commuter rail service in the same corridor. Twice -- in 1988 and in 2004 -- Bay Area voters approved measures to extend bridge toll subsidies for mass transportation. Today, a congestion-pricing scheme for San Francisco is winning public support because of its potential to strengthen mass transportation.

Another success story, New York City, also underwent major changes in transportation policy in the 1960s. Leaders of two regional car-centric powerhouses, the Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, struck deals that included long-term commitments to supporting mass transportation with tolls. Governor Nelson Rockefeller won concessions on behalf of subways and commuter rail that helped New York become a financial and cultural center. For example, revenue from the Holland Tunnel supported the PATH system, which helped thousands of people commute to the World Trade Center. And, tolls from the TBTA bridges revived the city's subways in the 1980s.

It's easy to argue that dense development made transit viable in these cities, but the relationship between land use and transportation is a two-way street. Without toll-funded transit, neither New York nor San Francisco would be the vibrant urban places they are today. As Americans become more and more enthusiastic about city life -- as shown by strong demand for homes in walkable neighborhoods even as property values in sprawling suburbs collapse -- transportation policy that is unified, not fragmented, becomes even more important.

Right now, there is an opportunity for change. Transit ridership is at a fifty-year high in the United States, despite the anemic state of most mass transportation systems. Metropolitan New York and the San Francisco Bay Area can be models for a new approach to the management of transportation, and more importantly, for its funding. Revenue generated by congestion pricing programs can help forge new and durable links across modes, especially if money is dedicated to transit that improves driving conditions and presents a convenient and affordable alternative. Let's change the way we think about getting around and start building transportation systems that serve the needs of people and places, not interest groups or bureaucracies.

 

 

Comments

[frantaylor]

We need to build highways to handle peak loads, that is, Rush Hour.

This is exactly the customer that mass transit is looking for,

Every person who rides the train to work is not in their car.

When you calculate the costs of public transportation, you are Not Done until you also factor in how much money will be saved in highway maintenance costs. Also, peak loads will be smaller and less new highway construction will be needed.

When you throw out raw cost numbers for public transportation costs, you are just MISLEADING.

[libertron]

But why is it that drivers statewide should subsidize transit? Consider my example in northwest Minnesota, where there is no mass transit to speak of (and none would be practical). Yet we are all going to be paying billions for light-rail lines in Minneapolis/StPaul, and we get no less congestion on our streets for it. Is there no business model that has mass transit paying it's own way, and if not, shouldn't it be called the failure that it is?

I do admit that in densely populated places transit mostly does pay for itself, and those are the places where it belongs. It should not be forced on other places by "green" left-wingers.

[frantaylor]

Why should non-drivers subsidize highways?

The answer is the same as the answer to your question:

Transporation is what keeps civilzation moving.

People in the country depend heavily on the city for all their needs, and vice versa.

Can you make an effort in your life to avoid seeing division and dicotomy wherever you look?

[libertron]

Non-drivers should subsidize roads (in small amounts) because the food they eat and everything else gets to them by truck. The product of their job leaves by truck, or in a service industry, customers get to them mostly by car.

I'm not being divisive, it's about economic efficiency. There are a limited amount of places where mass transit makes sense, and it shouldn't be forced onto other areas by this nonsense "green" bandwagon that everyone is on right now.

[westbrooks01]

What I think is sad is that the money is there for urban transportation solutions, including money from the ARRA, but cities, like the City of St. Louis have failed to develop task forces or departments to address the needs for modern urban transportation. Therefore, when the money arrives, like in the ARRA, cities do not have the proper barbs and asks in place to snag those funds.

The state of Missouri was awarded over $100 million dollars in ARRA transportation funds, the City of St. Louis, snagged $11 million of those dollars for sidewalk repair.

Transportation dollars for sidewalk repairs? Give me a break. Is walking the modern transportation solution?

http://stlstreetcar.blogspot.com/

[demockracy]

To answer your question: Yes, sidewalks are an important part of any transit system. Because of the way we build sprawl now, transit stops without any pedestrian connection are a commonplace (the Sacramento region published an estimate of $50 million just to connect all the disconnected sidewalks).

What kind of a chance does any transit system have when riders can't walk (or bicycle) to the stops?

And what kind of chance do pedestrians everywhere have when sidewalks are designed to discourage walking (the picturesque "meandering" walks that are a commonplace in fancy sprawl)?

[hippie chucker]

The author ignores, of course, the 50 million BART deficit. Ask yourself, Ms. Dyble-if public transportation is the future, shouldn't the sector be free of public underwriting, and able to survive on it's OWN revenues?

The reason that, more often than not, public transportation runs deficits, is that the vast majority of Americans reject the idea wholesale. The ability to move around at will trumps waiting for a train, any day.

The idea that we just need to pour even more money into deficit running public transportation system is just misguided.

[demockracy]

When third-world countries can have transit that arrives every 15 minutes, and pays for itself (e.g. Curitiba Brazil) with its OWN revenue, one has to ask what is missing in the U.S.

The truth: Not only are transit and highway funding at odds, as Ms. Dyble suggests, but massive subsidies exist for what we do now.

Pre-Gulf War I, the World Resources Institute estimated petroleum got $300 billion annually in subsidies. This included everything from tax write-offs for the industry (the "depletion allowance") to funding the defense of overseas oilfields -- something essential when U.S. petroleum production peaked in 1971, and must be supplemented with foreign oil. No amount of domestic drilling will return us to that peak, or so says even the American Petroleum Institute (the oil lobby), BTW.

So, really, we get $5 every time we drive, and are charged to take transit. Gee, I wonder why transit isn't viable or "favored"?

The final nail in transit's coffin is sprawl. When customers can't walk to stops on pedestrian-friendly streets, strangely enough, they don't use the system. Yet, according to the Congress on New Urbanism, we build sprawl 1500 times more than "Smart Growth" -- and the market pays premiums for Smart Growth.

As a consequence, most sprawl cities' transit rolls around a bunch of empty buses.

We could stop this right away, too, if we mandated FNMA loans only funded new development when it was "Smart Growth"... for free.

[ProgressiveVoice]

And you ignore the dramatic increase in ridership, which may have done something to solve that deficit, when gas in the Bay Area was over $4/gal.

You also don't mention health care costs - if health care expenses can bring down GM, it's no surprise if any public agency carries a deficit. They are the only ones left with defined benefits at retirement.

[frantaylor]

Why don't you calculate how much money it would cost to build the highways necessary to transport the people who currently ride BART. Suddenly that $50 million looks pretty good.

[tbird55]

I suggest we invest heavily in a new, high speed mag-lev inter-city rail system that stretches from Boston in the Northeast through Washington, D.C to Chicago and on to Los Angeles. We would create thousands of high paying engineering and construction jobs, we would create a much needed alternative to air travel, and we would be developing an improved, lower cost mag-lev technology that we could eventually export to other countries. The United States must rid itself of the right-wing, anti-government mind-set of the Republican Party that has led us nowhere but to politicians that reward corporate interests over the common good, that are afraid to think big. Today's Republican Party would never have had the balls to go to the moon, it costs too much money.

[hippie chucker]

What you say makes sense, if Amtrak were running record profits, I suppose.
Imagine you are writing a business plan for this mag-lev rail system. You present it to investors, who want to see how similar ventures have faired, and they ask you about Amtrak. What is your response?

[demockracy]

Again "hippie chucker" you assume the current system is not subsidized heavily. The question really is "who gets the subsidies?"

I'm not a big fan of mag-lev, but there's a point at which it makes more economic sense than sprawl edge cities and individual autos.

Google "peak oil" if you have the stomach for it. Warning: it can be *very* scary (e.g. dieoff.org)

[frantaylor]

By your logic, we should only invest in our water and sewer systems if they are making "record profits".

[frantaylor]

That money would be much better spent fixing up the tracks we have.

Currently Amtrak goes 50 mph under IDEAL conditions in this country off the Northeast Corridor.

There are places on the Northeast corridor where the trains can do 135 mph. TODAY. RIGHT NOW.

It would be tremendous if they could do that speed all across the country.

[TimothyWMurray]

Thank you for writing this. We need more mas transit. Is there something specific that I can do today in support of more commuter rail?

[frantaylor]

Write to your decision makers. Point out to them that if you can ride to work, your car will be off the road during rush hour.

[FearlessFreep]

One thing you might do is promote higher-density housing developments along the margins of the urban areas within which mass transit is feasible, thus expanding those areas.

[mbaty]

Yes, easily accessed convenient public transit is a must if we want to create a thriving society. And it solves several problems, for instance it would dramatically reduce drunken driving and it would ,and should, save a lot of people a lot of money that they otherwise wouldn't be able to konsume objects and services with.

[RonGallion]

I don't know if you live in New York, but that and limited urban areas are the only place that mass transit has a prayer. I live in the south and there is no way people would use mass transit. Everything here is spread out. With the mountains and hills it would take forever to get anywhere. Is a bus going to drive 35 miles to pick up one person? For the most part mass transit is a looser.Look at Amtrack it has lost money for 40 years. The government keeps shoveling money to them. I changed my mind mass transit is always a looser.

[demockracy]

You are essentially correct: There are density requirements for *everything*, not just transit. Look at the Urban Land Institute's "Dollars and Cents in Shopping Centers" and you'll see that a "neighborhood" shopping center (Safeway, a drugstore and little shops on 15 - 20 acres) requires 17,000 shoppers within shopping distance, say a 15-minute drive.

Using this logic for transit stops and neighborhood commerce empirically favors 13 dwelling units per acre (a little more dense than duplexes), but lower densities work well in communities with bicycle amenities.

Either way, this constant reminder that Amtrak and local transit loses money is disingenuous. It overlooks the subsidies for petroleum, and the subsidies for sprawl, both of which are enormous. If energy was properly priced (it's not) this would be very different, and the current subsidies wouldn't encourage us to build sprawl, own autos, or do lots that we currently do.

[ProgressiveVoice]

Actually, your argument supports the article. Everything there is spread out because it was built with a car mentality. I grew up in Arizona (actually, I am an Arizona native - a rarity when I was in school) so I know exactly what you mean, with the addition of 100 degree weather.

[frantaylor]

$10 gasoline will make a mass transit believer out of any southerner.

[noleftturns]

public transportation is a money looser every time. just depends how much is lost and how fast its lost

[Paul]

The private automobile is a money loser. It loses value the minute you drive it off the lot - it is a terrible investment.

Mass transit is the ticket to energy independence and freedom from car payments, insurance premiums, repair costs and high gasoline prices.

When can we start?

[hippie chucker]

As soon as you figure out a way to get three kids to a doctors appointment in a town 10 miles away, that isn't supported by mass transit, I suppose.

[ErikW65]

If you include interstate highways as public transportation in the analysis, and ignore long term benefits generally, then I agree with your assesment.

[hippie chucker]

You forget the millions of trucks that haul freight on our interstate highways.
Which is to say, that is how goods get to market....freight rail is dropping like a stone.