Are We Anti-Transit?
Posted by Fred Jandt
Editor, Mass Transit
Is our nation anti-transit? I know that’s a hard sentence to swallow, and for those of you reading this in transit-rich communities, it’s hard to conceive, but think about it for a minute. How many times have you heard of the American “car culture.” And how often has that been held up as a reason people just won’t try transit. Is it that they won’t try, or is it that they don’t have the option?
Are we as a nation anti-transit? No, no we’re not. But we’ve been ingrained since birth to treasure our material possessions like automobiles as if they were members of the family. So now asking someone to step onto transit is akin to asking them to give up their cars. And that feeling has infested our government from the top level on down, breeding a shortsightedness that is just staggering.
The current administration wants to cut the Amtrak budget by $100 million for FY 2008, not to mention the $300 million the transit funding is falling short. In comparison, it intends to increase highway funding by $500 million.
And yet, the president calls for us to end our addiction to foreign oil. By giving us more roads to drive on?! It is this amazing short-sightedness that struck me as I read an article about the Amtrak shortage this week and how it mirrored activity in my home state of Wisconsin.
The Milwaukee area is looking at revitalizing/expanding its transit system, but somehow no one can decide what the best way to do this is. The short-sightedness comes in when you realize that the city of Milwaukee has $91.5 million dollars to spend…and has had it for 16 years now!
I understand the value of patience, but 16 years?! You would think someone would have been able to come up with a plan by now. Take a look at your transit system and where they were 16 years ago. Sound Transit in Washington, our February/March cover story, didn’t even exist 16 years ago! And the amazing thing is they are still fighting over it.
The current mayor is looking at a plan that includes a downtown tram system, a commuter rail service serving a highly populated corridor, two BRT lines and upgrades and expansions to the current fixed-route service.
Sounds like a pretty good plan? I thought so, but evidently not good enough as the feuding continues with little to nothing being done at all. And herein lies the heart of the problem. It’s not about whether or not the plan is any good. It’s that the mayor stepped up and gave a plan. He suggested doing something, anything with the money the government gave the city for its transit system more than a decade ago.
And so the bickering begins again. And all the while these elected officials are fiddling, Rome is burning. Transit isn’t cheap, we all know that. But it sure isn’t going to have a sudden drop in price in the next year or so.
Actually, I bet the costs from 16 years ago look pretty good right about now.
Thanks for reading the MT Position, updated every Thursday.
February 22nd, 2007 at 3:13 pm
Fred,
I agree with everything you are saying in this position paper.
A fine example is right here in our county transit system. I sent numerous emails to the agency begging them to offer transit service to our neighborhood.
Imagine, having buses routed through the areas where people acutally live! But no, the only bus routes are located along the business districts of each of the small communities that make up the county.
These business districts have very few residences along them. This a suburban/country county. People don’t live in the city centers. I would have to walk a half mile through farm fields to get to the closest bus stop.
Consequently, most of the buses are circulating with less than 25% of thier seats filled at any time. The only full buses are the ones that make the downtown major city runs from the county owned park-n-ride sites.
Thanks for airing one of my pet peeves of mass transit.
Dale
February 22nd, 2007 at 3:21 pm
I couldn’t agree more.
Milwaukee has unbelievable transit ridership compared to its peer cities, yet it appears that some of the local politicians are unwilling to show true leadership and get behind permanent, adequate funding for its mass-transit system. MCTS has historically been one of the best-run, most efficient transit systems in the country. It, along with Louisville Transit Company and Indianapolis Transit, were three of the last “large” private transit systems to go public in 1974 because they were so well-run.
Here in the mid-south, and at systems further south, there is another, less-obvious force behind the dearth of political support for urban transit. A lady who came in (a few years ago) to tell me about how service ‘adjustments’ were going to affect her Sunday bus ride to church put it perfectly: She referred to it as a “plantation mentality.”
Thus we have public transit begging for funding throughout the south, especially in Alabama and Mississippi, but also in Tennessee and here in Kentucky.
As it turned out, the service adjustment worked out better for her, but she was concerned about others who used the route to get to and from jobs.
So am I.
Cliff Kuhl
Schedule Analyst
Transit Authority of River City
Louisville, KY
February 22nd, 2007 at 3:46 pm
Fred,
I passionately share your viewpoint on the poor state of transit affairs in our mutual home state of Wisconsin. I am embarrassed at how Milwaukee has completely mismanaged the $91 million fund during the last decade.
I operate a rapidly growing transit vehicle component manufacturing company located in the Milwaukee area and we provide good quality jobs for all our employees. All the jobs we provide have been created by the increasing demand of mass transit bus and railcar projects underway in most if not all other cities of comparable size to Milwaukee throughout North America. We also export our products to Korea and China to serve their growing committment to mass transit railcar and bus projects.
While the rest of the world embraces mass transit, Milwaukee truly needs to recognize that the time for a serious committment to transit is upon us. The proven benefits of transit are strong and clear. Milwaukee leaders need to end their political posturing and gather a community together to formulate an organized transit plan for the betterment of the community.
February 22nd, 2007 at 5:12 pm
We are,indeed, an anti-mass transit nation. Why? Partly because it is inbred into our culture. The highway and automobile industries have been opposing mass transit since the late 19th century. But almost as important is that we are a nation of property rights and privacy rights. Americans jealously guard both. We like the privacy affoded by our own automobiles. Most of us (except those life-long “big city” dwellers who consider it as a natural part of life) almost genetically resent the herd feelings that are associated with most of our nation’s older mass transit systems. It seems that without speaking of it collectively, the mid-size citys that are and have been moving into rail mass transit do so with style. Modern, clean, well-lit equipment, stations, and platforms are duely demanded by most tax payers who want the “mass” mentality removed from the process and prefer, instead, to think of it as merely a pleasant alternative to driving on grid-locked freeways. A time to re-set their minds by reading their book, watching their DVD, playing their video game, or listening to their iPods. The “mass” transit opeerators must satisfy their employer’s (i.e., the taxpayers) expectations by providing equipment that fits that bill. Over time, things will change and maybe the anti-transit bias will fade.
February 22nd, 2007 at 7:14 pm
I think “we” are basically neutral on transit. “Our” problem is the as-built system that we have, which does not deliver the goods. The way our economic and government system works — aided and abetted by “our” get-rich-quick and there-is-no-past-or- (day after) tomorrow mentalities — may be the reason we find ourselves where we are relative to transit (passenger railroads caved in, Red Line and Capitol Transit sold off, highway lobby, truck lobby, airplane lobby, unintended consequences, and on and on), but the way forward is to provide top quality transportation (read competitive with the auto in all respects, seamless with air travel, etc) while keeping the cost advantage.
“Our problem is not in the stars,…”
Robert J. Burke
February 23rd, 2007 at 3:22 am
Good Question! I am glad that you asked. Here is my long reply.
I have been involved in Transit as an Elected Transit Director serving 32 years, 20 years on AC Transit and 12 on BART. I have been appointed to two standing Committee at TRB and a Registered Engineer who is a life Member of ITE and APWA. I Retired after 40 years as a Public Works Engineer working with State, County, and City Civil Service on jobs ranging from Construction Engineer, Road Design, Development Review, Sewage Treatment, Traffic and Acting City Traffic Engineer. Therefore, I have a broad viewed of whether we are Pro/Anti Transit.
Also in my 32 years as a Transit Director, I have traveled to almost every major City in the US, Canada well over dozen times, Europe 6 times, Asia 5, Mexico 3 and South America twice examining overall transportation including transit and land use. Taking into account how we develop and consider transit, compared to other developed Countries I conclude my answer is YES, US is Anti Transit.
In planning developments, we require the developer to provide adequate roads and do not consider transit to serve the development as well. Then, whenever we encounter congestion, we habitually spend fortunes to relieve it but the relief build on itself and returns in a few years as a vicious cycle. We seldom consider transit alternatives to moderate congestion.
Meanwhile there are growing reliable reporting we are in the midst of Global Warming problem and continuing how we live and currently emit Greenhouse Gases (GHG) there will be dire results to our environment, weather changes; water shortage; sea level rise, drought, and quality of life.
It is known that autos are the major generators of GHG. US comprise of just 1/21 of the worlds population, but shamefully per capita is the greatest generator of GHG. SF Bay Region study indicated 50% of GHG was from vehicles which was greater than US overall and 3.6 times higher than rest of the world.. US utilizes third of the world’s petroleum production, which is mainly consumed by our vehicles producing major portion of our GHG. We are so inundated by vehicles we have more registered vehicles than issued driver licenses.
It will take major changes to reduce auto emission in how we develop, travel and live. This involves where and how we develop especially around low lands around the Bay for it is predicted that sea level will rise from a meter to what some studies predict more than 6 meters by year 2100. Single-family homes utilize several times the fuel and water than dense living units. An eminent problem of drought, caused by emission of GHG from autos is a reason we need to redevelop into more dense development as well as dense development uses less water.
We need to reduce GHG using comprehensive plans with developments utilizing increase transit. To accomplish this we need to place more emphasis on development of dense corridor routes for transit that increases transit operation and vitality. Additionally we need to educate everyone of the ineffectiveness of Congestion Relief because we will have it whether we develop or not.
I have viewed Dense Developed Communities in Stockholm, Amsterdam, Zurich, Yokohama, Tokyo, Kobe and Curitiba, which we call “Transit Oriented Development”. The TODs have dense nodal mixed-use corridors with businesses, institutions, and residential developments with minimum parking in which transit operates with priority. There people rely less on the auto and more on other modes of mobility as walking, bicycling, and public transit use. They create an enriched livable environment that provides a sense of neighborhood and community. Many have public open pedestrian space as plaza that is closed to auto. They substantially reduced the use of the auto, the major emitter of pollution and GHG.
Curitiba redeveloped high density corridors where prior to its development transit had only a 7% mode share but after the development of dense corridors with buses operating on Busways the mode share increased to 70%.. Almost every 5 Busway radial spine carries 100,000 trips per day, which is greater than any of the individual BART line and its cost was under 5% of what BART cost.
As for Milwaukee, they should consider beginning on a plan of developing dense corridors that are integrated with a plan to phase in enhanced bus operation using Bus Rapid Transit elements. Los Angeles has converted many of their major bus corridors with enhanced buses which they label Metro Rapid with great success. LA is looking forward to eventually converting these enhanced bus routes into a Busway and at existing major transit centers plan dense nodal TODs.
All the while we need to enlighten the public and politicians of what we are facing with Global Warming and GHG emissions and the need to reduce auto use by promoting better developments served by transit
February 24th, 2007 at 5:14 pm
The US is sure anti transit. I give you another example. I presently am in Daytona Beach, FL at a hotel about 3/4 mile from the convention center where I have been going for the last two days. As I have to pay a fixed fee to park at hotel and knowing the convention center garage costs $8.00 a day to park I decided I would take a bus each way every day as I saw a bus stop outside hotel. I asked hotel how often and when buses ran. The answer was they thought they ran every hour but did not know when. I then called the bus company and asked how often and when buses ran from the hotel bus stop to convention center. The reply was, they ran every hour but did not know when they stopped by my hotel and did not know where the convention center was so could not help me. All responder knew was when buses left terminal and arrived at destination but had no idea where either end point was in relation to where I wanted to get on and off. The bus stop says just that, no information as to times. When I drove to the convention center I saw a bus stop sign at the center but again it had no information other than bus stop. I saw a bus during the day and it had no one one it except the driver, no wonder.
February 24th, 2007 at 8:56 pm
Al Gore has brought forward “An Inconvenient Truth”; Matthew Simmons (”Twilight In The Desert”) & Rep. Roscoe Bartlett (R-MA) have brought forward another truth: deadly not just inconvenient. Namely, Peaking Oil, and there is not yet a remedy for it. We are just at the leading edge of Peaking Oil at average daily consumption around 85,000,000 bbls/day. The annual oilfield depletion rate is close to what we are making up from other fuel sources- so far.
We will experience a serious transportation crisis in the USA when the conventional oil depletion rate accellerates, which is likely before the end of this decade. Calls for transit whether rail or buses do not ever seem to pay attention to the freight component. Freight railways must be part of the discussion!
Simply addressed, we must find a way to enable shortline rail operators to proliferate on a massive scale, so as to re-connect the downtown victuals markets and warehousing with good rail/delivery truck interface. The energy crises (plural) will hit us like waves, affecting certain regions, trucking in some, automobiles in others. Eventually, the feds will institute allocation, or rationing. It is important to inventory rail corridors that can be rehabbed, military bases & manufacturing sites with rail footprint for secure warehousing and victuaks centers.
Region by region, locale by locale, planners must refamiliarize with footprint that can be rehabbed with regard to new demographics, etc. Above, the references to peaking oil must be studied, and understood in a manner to give responsibles in transit & transportation planning the backbone to withstand the criticism sure to appear when the policies favoring highway begin the deliberate turn back to rail and bus methodology.
Here is boilerplate on a page: (peakoil.net) -website for “The Association For The Study Of Peak Oil & Gas”- check out article 374 in the Newsletters section, extrapolate the concept to your locale. Rattle some cages!
April 26th, 2007 at 2:29 pm
Lets start taking the lead, get our politicians out of the oil patch and start helping our people. We need to get the oil and automobile lobby out of Washington. We need to get out of our cars and off of our collective buts. They may blame fast food and Television for our health problems and our being over weight but the two and three car attached garage next the the kitchen is more to blame. Why not consider building elevated rail or monorail systems right down the middle of some of our existing roadways. We could use the same areas for running some of our utilities. It would leave more green space as well as creating a more liveable environment for people as well as our wild life. I think we don’t need to go 200 miles per hour in most urban areas 80 or 90 with the ability to accelerate quickly and stop quickly would be more important. This is just the rambling of someone involved with transportation most of my career.