TRANSPORTATION
"The reason disposers of this system of torture feel quite secure
is that the victims have no option, no means of escape."--Alexander Cockburn,
"Why We Hate the Subways," Voice, March 14, 1977.
Local governments, especially those in larger cities, have meddled with community transportation so long and so thoroughly that it appears that each of the various transportation modes are much of the time carrying passengers who could be better transported by another mode. Government operates most bus and rail systems--at an annual loss of $2 billion--and protects high-priced taxicab monopolies by prohibiting the use of commercial jitneys and vanpools. Against such odds, automobile users seem firmly wedded to their steering wheels.
A History of Government Control The business of getting around town has
always been unfortunately caught up with government interference.
Few venture to guess how American communities would be composed today had
roads, rail transit, buses, and other transport modes been provided privately.
We can, however, trace a distinct historical development in transit which
largely explains the situation today. Transit emerged in the mid-1800's
with horse-drawn buses modified from stagecoaches. Bumpy streets
encouraged these buses to switch to rails, and streetcars powered by horse
and mule became all the rage--at least until the outbreak of horse flu
in 1872 spurred operators to seek improved locomotion. When Frank
Sprague introduced a reliable electric streetcar in 1888, urban transit
was able to halve its operating costs;l by 1900, the electric streetcar
became virtually universal.
The Results Today The predictable result has been a transit
decline which accelerated after World War Two and continued unabated except
for a slight improvement in transit ridership during the recent gasoline
scarcity. Twenty- five years ago, 14% of urban travel was by bus and subway;
seven years ago, 4.9%; today, only 4%.8 Revenue transit passenger counts
fell from
|
TABLE I
TRANSIT SYSTEMS CLASSIFIED
BY VEHICLE TYPE AND POPULATION GROUP
Urbanized Area |
Systems (a) |
Systems (b) |
Systems |
Systems |
500,000 and greater |
|
|
|
|
250,000 to 500,000 |
|
|
|
|
100,000 to 250,000 |
|
|
|
|
50,000 to 100,000 |
|
|
|
|
Less than 50,000 (c) |
|
|
|
|
Total U.S. Transit Systems |
|
|
|
|
(a) includes transit systems operating one of the following
modes exclusively: heavy rail, light rail, or personal rapid transit (PRT).
(b) Includes transit systems operating two or more of the following modes: heavy rail, light rail, trolley coach, motor bus, cable car, inclined plane, and ferry boat. (c) Population of urban place with less than 50,000 population outside an urbanized area. |
TABLE 2
PUBLICLY OWNED TRANSIT SYSTEMS
1975 (preliminary) |
Of Industry Total |
|
Number of Systems (December 31, 1975) |
|
|
Operating Revenue (Millions) |
|
|
Vehicle Miles Operated (Millions) |
|
|
Revenue Passengers Carried (Millions) |
|
|
Number of Employees |
|
|
Passenger Vehicles Operated (Total) |
|
|
Motor Buses |
|
|
Heavy Rail Cars |
|
|
Light Rail Cars |
|
|
Trolley Coaches |
|
|
Source: American Public Transit Association |
Taxi regulation ranges from the small-time,
venal persecution of unlicensed Amish drivers serving their kinfolk in
Lancaster County, Pennsylvania,12 to major police crackdowns in cities
like Los Angeles.13 The general pattern of restricting the taxi supply
to a fixed number of official "medallions" has so discouraged the taxicab
user market that the price-fixing increasingly fails to provide a living
wage to taxi drivers. Along the way it has ruined the taxi as an
effective transport option for poor and middle class people.
The misuse of bus technology is visible to the naked eye; just look at the empty buses trundling noisily around city back streets. Attempting to cut labor expense, municipal agencies use forty- and fifty-passenger buses on routes where large vans would perform a higher quality service at lower cost.14 Municipal bus service tends to be useful only to those who place a low value on their time; the buses pollute, waste energy, and are expensive to maintain and operate.15 Government transit policy has in some cases also displaced buses from the line-haul city-to-suburb runs where they seem most appropriate. When express buses can obtain reserved highway lanes, they provide commuter service of a quality equal to rail at less cost and energy consumption. One study of suburban bus and rail services placed the capital cost of a new rail system at $2.5 million per mile per year, as against $400,000 per mile per year for a reserved busway. Capital costs of rail equipment were figured at $560 per seat per year, compared to $135 for express bus equipment. Rail operating costs were estimated at 2.5 cents per seat mile versus I cent for express buses.16 Yet the political bias-of federal funding for well-publicized, high-employment rail projects--coupled with the extreme political difficulties of appropriating "public" highway space for specialized operation--continues to favor rail over bus for line-haul commuting.17 Only the high cost of new projects has forced a rethinking.18 Thus we have taxis pricing themselves out of a market. Buses are forced to perform jitney and taxicab service. Rail transit is forced to perform express bus service. While this undoubtedly oversimplifies the picture, we may ask: Is it any wonder Americans have resorted to their cars? It will take more than the government's "carrot and stick" to dislodge drivers from behind the wheel. New York's Tri-State Regional Planning Commission recently found that in the face of a 30¢ gasoline price hike, threefold increases in tolls for single-person autos, raised parking fees and restrictions, or gas rationing, only 30 to 50% of the commuters surveyed would change their driving habits--and three-quarters of these would switch to a carpool.19 A 1976 Regional Plan Association study summarized the impact of mass transit improvements in this way: cutting fares could boost ridership anywhere from 7 to 45%; halving running times might increase it from 14 to 20%; and doubling frequency, from 24 to 77%, all depending on existing prices and service. Seldom, it was recognized, do ridership increases make up for the revenue lost in lower fares and higher costs.20 To put public transit investments in perspective, it needs to be remembered that subsidizing new rail and bus lines during the past decade has mainly diverted riders from other previous transit lines and, to some extent, made new ridership possible. Diversions from automobiles have been so small that they often cannot be distinguished from the ordinary variance found in traffic counts.21 Even a 50% increase in transit ridership nationwide would dent urban auto use by only one per cent. We make no brief for the auto here. It's just that of all the contraptions which use government rights-of-way the family car is for most people the option which minimizes the impact of government intervention. What all transportation technologies need in order to be able to compete on a fair footing is to be released from the institutional constraints of regulation and municipal operation. Innovation Something like this is fortunately beginning
to take place. Until recently, "paratransit" experiments--modern-day jitney,
"dial-a-ride,"
Libertarian Proposals What will Libertarians do about community
transportation?
### |
PRESENT TRANSIT OPTIONS Taxicab: door-to-door service on an individual basis, over a wide range of land use densities. Costs fall rapidly when ride-sharing is allowed. "Dial-a-bus:" essentially group-riding taxi service using vans. Usually not feasible where low traffic density exists, but may be useful in collecting riders over a wide area bound for a single destination such as a railroad station. Subscription bus: fixed-route, subscription van transportation. Often arranged by employers to collect and distribute commuters to and from a work establishment. Also known as "vanpooling." Jitneys: vans operating on irregular routes and nonscheduled times, usually as feeder service for heavier transit. A taxi with ride-sharing is essentially a jitney. Local bus: fixed route, fixed schedule transportation usually using standard large bus equipment. Typical of most, urban bus transit operations. Express bus: nonstop line-haul bus service using standard or somewhat improved large buses,, usually operating between downtown and larger concentrations of suburban commuter origins. Often improved by the addition of facilities for "park and ride" or "kiss and ride." Light rail transit: essentially the old trolley rejuvenated, with the exception that most modern applications include exclusive rights-of-way. Cheaper than subways, and often applicable to existing "paths" such as abandoned railroad beds or freeway medians. Light guideway transit: automated systems being tested in various locations under Federal grants. Have yet to show feasibility because of high costs, inability to flexibly cope with peak traffic demands, and complex control equipment. Rapid rail transit: at a very high capital cost, usually not a viable proposition--unless a community has a highly concentrated business district including more than 15 million square feet of office floorspace and travel is limited to a few narrow corridors. In 1974-5 prices, both the Washington, D.C. and Atlanta rapid rail transit systems cost about $40 million a mile. Commuter rail: a mode of community transport usually limited by high labor and other operating costs to concentrated urban areas. Presently exists in significant amount in only seven North American Cities. Source: "Where Transit Works: Urban Densities for Public Transportation,"
Regional Plan News (August 1976). p. 1.
|
TRANSPORTATION NOTES |
1. | Peter C. Weiglin, "A Short History of Transit in the United States," 1976 Transit Fact Book (Washington, D.C.: American Public Transit Association, 1976) p. 14. |
2. | Ibid., p. 15. |
3. | Ibid., p. 17. |
4. | George W. Hilton, Federal Transit Subsidies: The Urban Mass Transportation Assistance Program (Washington, D.C.: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, 1974) p. 109. |
5. | Ibid., p. 109 Cf. Ross D. Eckert and George W. Hilton, "The Jitneys," The Journal of Law and Economics, vol. 15 (1972), pp. 293-325. |
6. | Hilton, Federal Transit Subsidies, p. 110. |
7. | Ibid., p. 110. |
8. | William D. Burt, "The Ride Out of No Man's Land," AREA Bulletin
(November-December 1976), p. 4. |
9. | 1976 Transit Fact Book, p. 30. |
10. | Ibid. p. 28. |
11. | 1976 Transit Fact Book, p. 22. |
12. | "Two Sides Explain Stands in Amish 'Taxi' Hassle," Lancaster (PA)
Intelligencer Journal, February 23, 1977. |
13. | "Transit Innovations," Reason (September 1975), p. 30. |
14. | For a detailed examination of comparative advantages of bus and rail modes, see J. Hayden Boyd, Norman J. Asher, and Elliot S. Wetzler, "Evaluation of Rail Rapid Transit and Express Bus Service in the Urban Commuter Market (Arlington, VA: Institute for Defense Analyses, 1973), and discussion in Hilton, Federal Transit Subsidies, p. 112. |
15. | Hilton, p. 112. |
16. | Boyd, Asher and Wetzler, cited in Hilton, p. 112. |
17. | Among the most successful of UMTA-funded projects were reserved
bus-ways in Seattle, WA and Washington, D.C. In Washington, the Shirley
Highway bus lane was later opened to four-rider carpools. 1973 estimates
of the car trips diverted to bus in the morning rush hour reached 3,000
(Hilton, p. 19) and carpools using the reserved lane in the morning rose
from 1,790 in November 1975 to 2,757 in May 1977.
It is worth noting that large portions of the Shirley Highway bus lane were built anew rather than subtracted from existing highway capacity; nonetheless considerable political pressure surfaced for converting the new lane into a straight addition to highway capacity. (Washington Star, August 11. 1977.) |
18. | This rethinking is composed of a new emphasis upon obtaining better use of existing facilities, called "transportation systems management." But even if federal funding for new rail systems halts, the bias continues to encourage capital grants for new cars, new stations, etc. in existing rail systems. |
19. | Burt, op. cit. |
20. | Regional Plan Association, Public Transportation and Land Use Policy (Indiana University Press, 1977). |
21. | For a survey of how UMTA-funded projects fared in this regard, see Hilton, Chapters 2 and 3. |
22. | "Getting to Work in Houston," Houston Chronicle, August
15, 1976.
Cf. William D. Burt, "Paratransit: From Out of the Woodwork," AREA Bulletin (July-August 1977). |
23. | Neal R. Peirce, "A New Approach to Mass Transit" Philadelphia Inquirer, June 15, 1977. |
24. | "Getting to Work in Houston," Houston Chronicle. |
25. | Peirce, op. cit. |
26. | Ibid. |
27. | Ronald F. Kirby, Kiran U. Bhatt, Michael A. Kemp, Robert G.
McGillvray, Martin Wohl, Para-Transit: Neglected Options for Urban Mobility (Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute, 1972). |
28. | See Gabriel Roth, Paying for Roads (Middlesex, England: Penguin
Books, 1967), Chapter 5; and William Vickrey, "Pricing in Urban and Suburban
Transport," American Economic Review, vol. 52 (1963),
pp. 452-465; and "Pricing As a Tool in Coordination of Local Transportation," Transportation Economics (New York: Columbia University Press, 1965), pp. 275-291. |
29. | "Striking Contrast: Trolley and People Mover," Civil Engineering-ASCE, March 1977, pp. 67-68. |
30. | Robert Bish, Vincent Ostrom, Understanding Urban Government (Washington, D.C. American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, 1973) p. 21. |
31. | James Wilson, Regional Planner, Tri-State Regional Planning Commission, at the Polytechnic Institute of New York, fall 1976. |
Chapter 6 |
|