Literature review: mass transit

Creating sound public policy regarding mass transit within the United States is a complex and not so concrete process.  Factors such as economics, politics, and advertising must all be considered in constructing and proposing plans for mass transit development. Other factors such as security and the environment should also be considered, but will not be touched on in this literature review.  Once all has been considered and what seems to be a good plan is developed, the plan has to stand up to competing interests in nearly every forum imaginable.   Businesses, politicians, and everyday people alike have a stake in whether or not new transit systems are built.  With the enumerable competing interests involved in policy setting, it seems the actual goal of creating the best case scenario in mass transit is lost often times.  Furthermore, the pros and cons of developing mass transit systems are unclear, because the plans for development are often changed numerous times before, during, and after implementation.  With all of this in mind, the previously mentioned factors will be considered in this review of mass transit literature. 

Economics:

Determining how a project will be financed must be considered at all levels of policy development regarding mass transit.  Some questions that need to be addressed include:  Is the project realistic in terms of cost?  Is the cost worth the benefit?  Will funding come from the federal government, state government, private interests or a combination of them? Addressing the first question proves difficult, as some experts believe accuracy in project cost estimation is nearly impossible to come by, due to the fact that circumstances during the projects undertaking are ever changing. Flyvbjerg (2002) suggests that using cost at the time of decision to build as a basis of comparison is comparing apples and oranges. When, for instance, the physical configuration of the original Los Angeles Blue Line Light Rail project was altered at substantial cost to comprise grade-crossing improvements, upgrading of adjacent

streets, better sidewalks, new fences, etc., the project was no longer the same. It was, instead, a new and safer project, and comparing the costs of this project with the costs of the older, less safe one would supposedly entail the apples-and-oranges error. However, this study suggests this underestimation in cost is conducted on purpose with the intent of getting the project approved. Flyvbjerg et. al., also found in an extensive study of mass transit projects across the U.S., that 9 of 10 projects are significantly underestimated, with on average actual costs being 45 percent higher than initially quoted. As one can imagine, it would be hard to conduct an initial cost-benefit analysis if the cost can’t accurately be determined.
As far as funding is concerned, traditionally it came from private and local interests. However, with the inception of the mass produced automobile in the early twentieth century, the ridership of mass transit dropped significantly. In fact, according to Jones (2008), per capita ridership dropped from 147 riders per capita in 1927, to 70 riders per capita in 1955. With the lack of ridership, and diminishing funds entering 1960, the federal government had to step in to fund and salvage many deteriorating mass transit projects. This has been the trend since the 1960s, as mass transit hasn’t been a very profitable venture.

Politics:

Politics in mass transit is similar to politics in other domains of urban policy. Competition between interest groups dictates how issues are resolved. Interest groups with more resources, more skill, and positional advantages tend to prevail, according to Fielding (1987). With this in mind, it seems mass transit has not received a fair shake in free market competition. The automakers resources and positional advantages have allowed it to coerce the federal government into dedicating the vast majority of transit funds to highways for automobiles, as opposed to improving mass transit such as buses and light rail systems. An example of the disproportion of allocated funds in transit is highlighted by the fact that in 1980 highways received 39.7 billion dollars. In contrast, all forms of mass transit received 5.8 billion. In 1990, highways received 74 billion, whereas mass transit received 14.2 billion according to (The Free Congress Research and Education Foundation). Fitch (1964), lists a few suggestions to curtail the one sided funding trend. Although this is an old source, I wanted to use it to show that good ideas were formulated decades ago, but have still not been implemented. First, it is suggested that certain changes be made in the federal-aid highway program to: a) permit use of highway research funds for general transportation and research; b) assure conformity of federal-aid highway plans with comprehensive regional plans; and c) permit the Secretary of commerce to use highway trust funds for general transportation improvements, which in turn will promote more effective operation of federal aid to highways. Also, the federal government should treat urban transportation as a single comprehensive problem of urban regions rather than attempting to deal piecemeal with any of the elements, such as suburban railroads. The first concern should be with organization and planning rather than with transportation per se.

Advertising:

Advertising in mass transit is a tricky undertaking for proponents of the type of transportation. In the United States, it seems there is a negative stigma attached to using public transportation. Lovelock (1987) states the term “transit riders” tends to evoke images of hapless commuters or the unfortunate poor and perhaps elderly. Even as a child, it was a shameful thing to ride “the cheese”, or in adult terms “bus” to school. It is not like this in many other countries. A lot of negative advertising has been put out to give people these stereotypes. I can recall seeing a billboard in Detroit MI, showing a bus with the headline “creeps and weirdos boarding now”, with a Chevrolet vehicle at the bottom, at a low price, giving a commuter a way to avoid using the bus. An aggressive advertising campaign must be considered when formulating a plan for increased mass transit use. However, advertising is not nearly enough. Lovelock (1987) names a survey that asked consumers what most influences their purchasing decisions. Respondents said: Company/product image, 38.6 percent; word of mouth recommendation, 37.4 percent; and advertising, only 20.5 percent. It seems much of the work should be focused on developing the right product image. People do not generally self-identify as transit users, in the same way as, say, people identify with being owners of Cadillacs, Volvos, or even Vws. In the U.S., European cars such as a Mercedes are viewed as cosmopolitan. Maybe advertising and product image should attempt to shift towards pushing a European style of living. With word of mouth being a key factor, it is important to focus effort on this as well. People generally won’t tell other people about what a positive experience riding a bus was, but they will likely vent about what a negative experience it was. With this in mind, in order to keep and attract customers, an “800” hotline should be set up with the slogan “If you like our service, tell your friends; if you don’t….tell us.” (Lovelock 1987).

There is evidence from consumer research to suggest that, outside of the lower income groups, travelers are more sensitive to speed of service in their modal choice behavior than to the cost of service. For example, a study of commuters in Philadelphia found that 12 percent of auto users didn’t us transit because of high fares, while 28 percent viewed it as too slow, and 30 percent saw it as unreliable, overcrowded, or infrequently scheduled. The policy implications of this for transit managers are twofold. If the service is already speedy, this fact should be promoted. If the services are not competitive in speed, consider what can be done by way of introducing new premium-priced express service, and speeding up existing services through introduction of new equipment, more frequent headways, introduction of exclusive bus lanes or development of other traffic systems where priority is given to transit.

Bibliography:

Jones, D.W. (2008) Mass Motorization and Mass Transit: An American History and Policy Analysis. Indiana University Press

Publishers: San Francisco/London

San Francisco

As such, beliefs that rail transit can: “attract people out of cars, save scarce energy resources, be more economical,” etc., may be false (Lave, 1, 1979). Many of the same reasons that commuters have avoided making the transition to public transportation in the past, like the fact that it is not as fast, safe, convenient, reliable, and so forth, are still applicable today (Lave 1979). With two-wage earning parents each heading in different directions, and often transporting children to and from various events throughout the day, private transportation is simply the most ideal option for most families.

An additional aspect to recent considerations regarding mass transit is the fact that many people in American society are even less inclined to resort to public transportation than they were in the past due to fears of terrorist attacks. Particularly since 9/11, there has been a resurgence of families looking for the safety of distant suburbs. Many have been “willing to spend large amounts of their income and commuting budget in pursuit of splendid isolation” (Nelson & Dueker, 91, 1990). According to Nelson and Dueker, in the United States especially, where land is relatively abundant and the Jeffersonian dream of independence still going strong, citizens are looking to move away from old urban centers, in pursuit of novel and peaceful domains.

Another point of inefficiency regarding building rail systems in many U.S. cities is the issue of cost, for both the potential commuters, and the government as a whole. As Rosegrant stated in the 2001 Sound Move case study, “people [today] often live and work in different cities” because they cannot afford to live in urban centers (4). So while many supporters of rail state that a regional transit system could “support land use goals by helping to increase urban density and [thus] preserve green spaces outside the city,” they seem to ignore the fact that many families today are thinking fiscally, not simply with an idealized notion of preserving the environment (Rosegrant, 1, 2001).

As Snow and Steinnes state in their 1983 study, there is an “economic trade-off between housing and transportation costs” (139). Oftentimes, the length of time that it takes one to get to work, or the amount of unnecessary pollution released by one’s commute, is not the most important determinant of where one resides. It appears as though the closer one lives to the heart of a city, the greater the land value is, and hence, the more expensive the rent. In today’s economy, this may be one of the many reasons why building a rail system is perhaps not the most energy efficient act.

Additionally, taking into consideration the fact that many people today no longer possess the types of jobs that require them to be downtown from nine to five, building a rail system does not make sense. Modernity has brought with it the ability for people to conduct much of their work from their residence thanks to expanding telecommunications. In fact, a large majority of people who relied on rail transit in the past are those who worked directly in a central business district. Therefore, if more people are finding alternative work, rail transit could be deemed completely unnecessary in the near future (Hendrickson 1986). Many households today are further able to hold positions where they are able to avoid peak commuting hours (Nelson & Dueker, 94, 1990). Even if many people still go to work in the central business district, however, Lave suggests that rail systems tend to concentrate activity in these already confined areas, and since many commuters will choose private automobiles over public transportation, the problems of congestion that already exist will only be magnified.

Regarding the costs accrued by the government, Lave addresses the issue regarding rail transit and the amount of energy such systems actually save. While they do not seem to convince enough people to leave their cars behind to reduce pollution to any large degree, “their environmental costs are astronomical” (Lave, 5, 1979). Overall, it costs a great deal of labor and energy to build any sort of rail system, and these energy costs “completely dominate daily energy savings” realized by rail transit (Lave, 6, 1979).

A reasonable conclusion seems to be that perhaps mass rail transit should be avoided altogether in cities that do not already utilize rail forms of transportation. For those that do, perhaps, as Kenneth Orski implies, “track-sharing” may be the least costly way of going about rail transit (1980). Track sharing refers to the use of existing rail facilities in order to efficiently use tracks already in place. According to Lave, only buses use less energy than both individual cars and rail, so in terms of public policy, it may be best to focus on rehabilitating old methods of mass transportation in many large and congested cities.

Works Cited

Hendrickson, Chris. “A Note on Trends in Transit Commuting in the United States

Relating to Employment in the Central Business District.” Transportation Research. Vol. 20A, No. 1, pp. 33-37, 1986.

Lave, Charles A. “Transportation and Energy: Some Current Myths.” Institute of Transportation Studies. University of California, Irvine, pp. 1-20. January 1979.

Nelson, Arthur C. and Kenneth J. Dueker. “The Exurbanization of America and Its Planning Policy Implications.” Journal of Planning Education and Research. Vol. 9, No. 2, pp. 91-100, 1990.

Orski, Kenneth C. “The Federal Rail Transit Policy: Rhetoric or Reality?” Transportation 9. Elsevier Scientific Publishing Co., Amsterdam, pp. 57-65. 1980.

Snow, Richard E. and Donald N. Steinnes. “Positive Rent Gradients and Accessibility in the Dispersed Two-Dimensional City.” Transportation Research. Vol. 17A, No. 2, pp. 139-148, 1983.

Looking at mass transit as a policy issue can be a daunting task, considering the many different aspects that involve the issue (e.g. planning, funding, ownership, etc). One important aspect of mass transit which has drawn attention in the international scene is the argument over private and public ownership of mass transit systems. Much of the literature covering ownership of mass transit looks through a cost/benefit analysis, attempting to show how these systems have either improved or worsened the situation. While both arguments offer different view points, the problems of mass transit appear to affect both systems. These problems include poor service, higher costs, safety concerns, and low ridership. Reviewing the literature, some conclusions can be drawn on the benefits and problems of both systems and on the possible solutions for which mass transit systems can move forward on.

In modern time, the trend towards privatizing mass transit has been viewed as an effective mode in improving the quality of service. While the belief that market competition would require service providers to offer a desirable product with an efficient production, many analyses have shown the vulnerabilities of such systems to market trends (Echeverry, 2005: 151-152). These trends include competition which leads to higher investment and more inclusion into the market. While more players in the market have appeared to be effective in other areas, their impact on mass transit only increases congestion and chaos on the streets. Safety is also a concern, as privatization and competition encourages cost cutting through unsafe vehicles and unsafe driving practices to maximize passengers obtained (Gilbert, 2008: 444). The belief that revenues earned will replace government subsidies has also been observed to be false, as many private firms find it difficult to turn a profit (Mees, 2005:444).

The public system has also seen problems with its inability to improve service due to bureaucratic tendencies. Due to conflicting demands from various lobbying groups, mass transit in some areas has been forced into a downward trend in desirability and efficiency (Bianco, 1999). Central governments have appeared to focus too much attention on reducing cost instead of improving service to the systems (White, 1997: 14). Though its ability to improve service is negligible, government control has been an effective tool in regulating mass transit systems in regards to safety. Many systems have emerged, such as the Transmilenio bus system in Bogotá, where public control is combined with private operation. While some problems with such a system have been observed, this public/private model has been adopted by many poor developing countries (Echeverry, 2005).

While both sides of the argument desire the same ends in their preferred system (i.e. organized, cost efficient, and a benefit to the public), mass transit systems overall appear to be facing their biggest challenge from consumer preference for time and convenience (Echeverry, 2005). The increase in personal automobiles is one of the biggest signs in the decline of public transportation usage and desirability (White, 1997: 2). This influx of automobiles into confined urban settings will only increase chaos and work negatively against what mass transit is supposed to improve on. While the only way to bring passengers back to mass transit requires increasing the quality of the system, policy planners and private business will need to work together to find desired outcomes. The difference between public and private control does not appear to be very important as long as the desired outcomes are met. Unfortunately these outcomes have not yet been fulfilled in any type of system; private, public, or public/private. With so many groups taking part in such a complex issue, cooperation and not personal preference appears to be the only way forward.

Works Cited

Bianco, Martha J. 1999. “Technological Innovation and the Rise and Fall of Urban Mass Transit.” Journal of Urban History. 25 (3):348-378.

Echeverry, Juan Carlos, Ana Mara Ibez, Andr'scaron Moya, and Luis Carlos Hilln. 2005. “The Economics of TransMilenio, a Mass Transit System for Bogotá.” Economia. 5:151-196.

Gilbert, Alan. 2008. “Bus Rapid Transit: Is Transmilenio a Miracle Cure?” Transport Reviews. 28 (4):439-467.

Mees, Paul. 2005. “Privatization of Rail and Tram Services in Melbourne: What Went Wrong?” Transport Reviews. 25 (4):433-449.

White, P. R. 1997. “What conclusions can be drawn about bus deregulation in Britain?” Transport Reviews. 17 (1):1.

Is there a great deal of academic literature related to the subjects focused on mass transit. Much of the literature is a nuanced view, whether it be of a particular city, a focus on a type of transit, or the impact of cities having or not having a well developed mass transit program. Mass transit is a useful means of interrupting the means by which a person gets to destination usually in an urban setting. Driving has increased steadily over the nine year period between 1993 and 2002, increasing 11 percent (Ross). Also increased with this amount of driving is the amount of autos on the highways and thus an increase in congestion and pollution. Mass transit systems can benefit society by making travel time less, reducing pollution, and increasing access for lower class citizens to recreation, jobs, and education.

Urban populations rely heavily upon mass transit to move people into city centers, particularly in the example of New York City (Heatwole). Another factor mentioned in the literature as social conditions changing as a result of enhancing mass transit. Most of the people who currently use public transportation, as Heatwole points out, are low income and poor. By enhancing these systems, lower income people have more access to education, occupation, and recreation.

There is no good way to put an appropriate cost-benefit analysis together for social benefits as it relates to economic contributions to a city. That makes light of a highly debated aspect of mass transit; it’s cost. Charles Lave argues that the building of BART in San Francisco took 25.2 times more energy than an equivalent highway would. Orski rejects this saying “the time at which BART begins to realize net energy savings is far sooner than that predicted by Lave: 15 to 40 years, depending on assumptions, compared with the 168 to 535 years estimated by Lave… The cost of light rail systems - and their construction energy requirements - can be 50 to 70 percent less than the cost of a full heavy rail system.” Other authors argue the value of light rail versus heavy rail and bus routes versus toll lanes. All argument generally reside back to cost versus benefits, but largely that debate remains unsettled as ideology can determine its degree (Ross). Toll lanes are often referred to as “Lexus Lanes” because instead of relieving traffic as per their goal, they tend to leave poor travelers to congestion while those who can afford the added cost get to move fast down highways.

Developing cities such as those in the third world generally lack sophisticated mass transit programs (Fouracre) and rely on buses. Studies show that the benefits of mass transit programs often do not do enough to warrant the cost of infrastructural upgrades necessary. Debate is often contentious in cities looking to enact new programs based on a number of issues. Proponents of light rail systems see benefits in the fact that emissions are low on this type of system while enhancing the cities modern appeal. Bus routes are often ineffective because unless they have dedicated lanes, which is costly, they are bound by the same constraints as autos are; congestion and frequents stops.

Ross mentions programs that have seen mixed results as a way to get more people in to public transit and away from private autos. The theory is to price people out of driving, namely, to put tolls on the road making it more expensive to drive a car than it is to use the mass transit system. The problem with this proposal is that a well developed transit system must be in place for this to work, as it has in London (Ross, 63).

Canada’s largest city, Toronto, has generated a problem of over-capacity of its current mass-transit system (Brown). It’s problem is not that the city doesn’t offer a quality mass transit system, its that too many people use it. Brown’s article suggest that the a light rail system would provide a cheap (1/10 the price of new subway system) and effective addition to the current system and would elevate the network of 175 million passengers per year.

One thing that most authors agree upon is that constructing mass transit system is both contentious and multifaceted. Its benefits can result in people viewing a city as being modern, alleviating traffic congestion, creating socially beneficial and favorable conditions for low income people, and reducing pollution in urban areas where it is most problematic. Debates on mass transit usually reside on cost, who pays for it, where it goes, and what system makes the most sense both geographically and economically.

Brown, Jeff L. "Toronto Plans Network of Light-Rail Systems." Civil Engineering (08857024) 77.5 (May 2007): 30-30. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Lied Library, Las Vegas, NV. 17 Sep.2008

Fouracre, Phil, Christian Dunkerley, and Geoff Gardner. "Mass rapid transit systems for cities in the developing world." Transport Reviews 23.3 (July 2003): 299. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO.

Heatwole, Charles A. , Niels C. West. “Mass Transit and Beach Access in New York City.” American Geographical Society. Geographical Review, Vol. 70, No. 2 (Apr., 1980), pp. 210-217

Orski, C. Kenneth. “Mass Transit Versus Highways.” American Association for the Advancement of Science. Science, New Series, Vol. 197, No. 4298 (Jul. 1, 1977), pp. 7

Ross, Benjamin. "Stuck in Traffic." Dissent (00123846) 53.3 (Summer2006 2006): 60-64. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Lied Library, Las Vegas, NV. 17 Sep. 2008.

The advent of mass transportation in North America is directly linked to the adoption of Euclidean zoning codes. Euclidean zoning is known for the separation of land uses into geographic areas, thus separating the residence from the workplace. This allowed for the creation of the outlying residential communities. The Concentric ring model also explains this phenomenon. Sociologist Ernest Burgess created this model, also known as the Burgess Model, to describe the migration of social groups out of the urban areas. The concentric ring model identified the core of the urban area as the central business district (CBD). The first ring surrounding the CBD was known as the factory zone, followed by the working class zone, the residential zone and finally by the outermost ring known as the commuter zone.

Burgess theorized that the working poor resided in the working class zone close to their place of employment. As their income levels increased, this group would move out of the working class zone and into the residential zone. As their wealth continued to grow, they would eventually move into the commuter zone, requiring them to commute back and forth to the CBD and rely heavily on mass transit.

The use of transit in major cities such as New York and Boston was growing exponentially from 1900 to 1927 until the Great Depression. While there was resurgence after World War II, the use of mass transit has been generally constant since 1970 despite four decades of increasing public subsidies (Taylor, Miller, Iseki, & Fink, 2008). The increase in automobile ownership further impacted the patronage of mass transit. Nationally, 85.8 percent of all trips were by vehicles in 2001 as compared with only 2.1 percent on public transit (Taylor et. al., 2008). As referenced in the Seattle Case study, vehicle miles traveled in the region rose by more than 80 percent between 1981 and 1991, from 30 million to 55.2 million (case C14-01-1639.0, 2001).

In Switching Commuters from Car to Public Transit: A Micro Modelling Approach, the authors note that switching commuters to transit not only lowers energy consumption, but reduces traffic congestion. However, when deciding whether to use transit, commuters will utilize a set of finite criteria in determining their mode of transportation: cost of the trip, service provided, auto availability and in some cases privacy and safety.

The authors found that transit riders were more likely to be female, younger, lower income, and less educated in non-professional or managerial positions and less likely to own a personal vehicle. These commuters were also more prone to live closer to the office and to transit stops. Interestingly, data show that the riders cut across demographic groups; however, this was the not the case for households whose income exceeded $40,000 a year.

Because of the separation of land uses, commuters also became dependent on their car, not to mention the freedom it afforded them. In Estimating the effects of light rail on health care costs, the authors developed a model to assess the savings in public health from the investment in a light rail system. One source associated obesity in the United States with approximately $75 billion in direct health-related expenses. Further, estimates showed that for each additional hour spent in a car per day resulted in a 6 percent increase in the likelihood of being obese. The authors estimated that the use of rail increases the chances of walking at least 30 minutes a day by 67 percent.

In The effects of new public projects to expand urban rail transit, the authors examines before and after panel data of upgraded rail transit in five cities to assess the effects these improvements have on ridership. Between the years 1980 and 1990 the authors looked at transit expansions in the cities of Boston, Atlanta, Portland, and Washington DC. They were able to demonstrate that some commuters were willing to switch from their cars to transit resulting in a decrease in congestion and an improvement to the environment. The findings also showed an increase in property values along the transit route.

To the contrary, some critics question whether traffic congestion and mitigation policies are unduly influenced by politician’s political agendas. In Brian D. Taylor’s topical issues paper entitled, The politics of congestion mitigation, he suggests that cities are congested because they are so accessible and that “congestion and cities have gone hand-in-hand for centuries.” Taylor notes that funding of transit improvements over road expansion projects to address congestion reduction is more politically palatable to elected officials, even though these investments are unlikely to significantly reduce congestion.

Similar to the situation in Seattle, Taylor argues that politicians are more apt to support transit over feasible public works projects since public transit expenditures are viewed as an effective way of reducing congestion, particularly since traffic congestion is not popular with the voting public. Taylor concludes with the notion that data suggests that transport and parking availability and pricing is more effective in influencing travel behavior.

Transportation demand management (TDM) is a tool that traffic engineers have used in order to modify commuter’s travel behaviors. Unlike transportation system management (TSM), which focuses on transportation supply, TDM focuses exclusively on travel demand (Ferguson, 1990). In Mass transit trends and the role of unlimited access in transportation demand management, Bryan Dorsey conducted a case study analyzing mass transit incentive programs at two universities located in the Wasatch Front of Utah. The Wasatch Front Regional Council estimated that approximately 98 percent of all trips in the Wasatch Front urban area were made by automobiles. In addition, transportation problems have plagued the Wasatch Front for years, especially since this region accounts for a third of the state’s population.

The author theorizes that mass transit incentive programs can provide savings through the reduction and postponement in the increase of parking and allow for the potential for development on land otherwise devoted for parking. The author found that when transit incentive programs were implemented, student ridership increased within the first year of the program operation as well in subsequent years. However, one of the leading disincentives to TDM programs and to policies aimed at reducing traffic congestion, improving air quality standards and land use efficiencies is the availability of low cost parking.

As in the case of Seattle, cities across the country are dealing with congestion and traffic problems in their urban core and the desire to reduce pollution and enhance the quality of life for its residents. It would appear that the debate of whether the introduction of mass transit or the expansion of existing transit facilities will continue.

Baum-Snow, N., & Kahn, M. E. (n.d.). The Effect of New Public Projects to Expand Urban Rail Transit. Journal of Public Economics, 2000(77), 241-263.

Dorsey, B. (n.d.). Mass Transit Trends and the Role of Unlimited Access in Transportation Demand Management. Journal of Transport Geography, 2005, 235-246.
Fenwick, I., Heeler, R., & Simmie, P. (n.d.). Switching Commuters from Cars to Public Transit: A Micro Modelling Approach. Journal of Economic Psychology, 1983, 333-345.
Stokes, R. J., MacDonald, J., & Ridgeway, G. (n.d.). Estimating the Effects of Light Rail Transit on Health Care Costs. Health and Place, 2008, 45-58.

Taylor, Brian D. The Politics of Congestion Mitigation. Transit Policy, 2004(11), 299-302.

Taylor, B.D. et al, Nature and/or nurture? Analyzing the determinants of transit ridership across US urbanized areas, Transport. Res. Part A (2008), doi:10.1016/j.tra.2008.06.007

On November 5, 1996, residents of the Puget Sound area in northwestern Washington finally voted in favor of a regional rail-based transit system. Similar rail-based transit measures had failed for decades due to high costs, long development schedules, and inequitable service throughout the three counties of the Puget Sound region. These obstacles to widespread support for a mass transit overhaul were all directly linked to one component of the plan: light rail. In every mass transit proposal in which it was included, light rail was the most expensive and time consuming component to implement and operate. Furthermore, the light rail component of the plan was Seattle-centric, which alienated voters from counties that the rail would not service.

Despite the obstacles in implementing a rail-based system, its proponents continued to extol its benefits and, according to Rob McKenna, a Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority (RTA) member quoted in Sound Move: The Debate Over Seattle’s Regional Transit System, rail proponents portrayed the alternatives unfairly (Kennedy School of Government a, 2001, p. 16). An analysis performed under the RTA claimed rail would produce large financial profits as well as unquantifiable benefits, such as improvements in air quality. Another independent analysis, performed by ECONorthwest, however, found the unquantifiable benefits negligible and argued that the cost of a rail-based system would exceed its benefits by $2.5 billion (Kennedy School of Government a, 2001, p. 18).

Serious problems arose for the light rail component of the project soon after the transit measure passed and construction began. According to the Kennedy School of Government in Sound Move: The Debate Over Seattle’s Regional Transit System (Sequal), these problems led to an increased project cost of $1.2 billion and three additional years of construction (Kennedy School of Government b, 2001, p. 2). Furthermore, buses were taken out of the Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel, which according to Niles, Nelson, and MacIsaac in Light Rail or Buses in the Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel, will lower service quality for suburban riders and increase congestion (Niles, Nelson, and MacIsaac, 2001, pp. 6, 16).

According to Wendell Cox, in Why Light Rail Doesn’t Work, light rail does virtually nothing to reduce automobile use, congestion, or air pollution (Cox, 2000, p. 10). Light rail proponents, however faced with increasing problems and criticism, stubbornly continue to support the rail. Michael Vaska of the Greater Seattle Chamber of Commerce still believed that rail was an essential component of the transit system and that the measure would never have passed without it (Kennedy School of Government b, 2001, p. 3). This seems to be a common perception among rail proponents, and it is interesting in that it has been rail that has complicated agreeing on, passing, and implementing a transit plan for Puget Sound. The attitude that rail is an essential component may be based on its inherent attractiveness. Political leaders might feel voters would be excited by a rail system, and would therefore support it. It does, after all, seem to be more elegant than a bus system. Leaders’ perceptions may have been affected, furthermore, by a desire to please certain groups, in this case the prominent environmentalist groups (Boschken, 1992, 265-266).

The lesson to be learned from the Seattle Regional Transit System is that policy and program developers should not attempt to pass off the most attractive option as the most effective. They should, instead, make the most effective option the most attractive. For mass transit, the most effective option seems to be Bus Rapid Transit (BRT). According to Hess and Yoh, in Light-Rail-Lite or Cost-Effective Improvements to Bus Service? Evaluating the Costs of Implementing Bus Rapid Transit, BRT uses services and technologies to make buses faster, more reliable, more convenient, and safer (Hess and Yoh, 2005, p.3). BRT is cheaper and can serve more people than light rail (Hess and Yoh, 2005, p. 4). The problem is that it is not “attractive.” John Buell, in Daydreams and Nightmares: Remaking Modern Transportation, proposes that public transit such as buses “has long been a coded a necessity for life’s losers” (Buell, 2007, p. 14). He argues that policy makers should portray public transit, such as buses, in a more positive light. This includes connecting it to images of leisure, freedom from driving, and positive cultural encounters. Once again, policy makers and program developers should focus on finding the most effective solution to a problem and making it attractive to their constituents.

Boschken, H. (1992). Analyzing performance skewness in public agencies: the case of

urban mass transit. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 2(3), 265-288.

Buell, J. (2007). Daydreams and nightmares: remaking modern transportation. The Humanist, 67(1), 13-16.

Cox, W. (2000). Why Light Rail Doesn’t Work, San Antonio, TX: Texas Public PolicyFoundation.

Hess, D., Taylor, B., & Yoh, A. (2005). Light-rail-lite or cost-effective improvements to

bus service? evaluating the costs of implementing bus rapid transit. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board,22-30.

ITR Tunnel Team Report to King County Transportation Committee. (2001). Light rail

or buses in the downtown seattle transit tunnel: assessment of the benefits to king

county metro and regional public transportation. Niles, J., Nelson, D., &MacIsaac, J.

Kennedy School of Government a. Sound Move, The Debate over Seattle’s Regional

Kennedy School of Government b. Sound Move, The Debate over Seattle’s Regional

When discussing mass transit systems in the United States, one needs to look no further than Seattle to understand the complexities that surround the issue. As evidenced by the Kennedy School of Government Case Program, “Sound Move: The Debate Over Seattle’s Regional Transit System”, the greatest challenges lie in answering some of the most basic questions, i.e. how effective is mass transit in solving traffic congestion problems, how can we know if people will actually use it and finally, how do we implement it? The answers are not easy to provide considering that varying arguments are inevitably presented and that some of the benefits of mass transit are difficult to quantify. Though the stakeholders involved share a common goal – reducing traffic congestion – for numerous reasons, it is difficult for them to agree on a common solution.

Transportation issues vary from city to city, yet the challenges that Seattle has faced are representative of other areas that have also struggled to address roadway congestion. In his article, “Notes from Underground: The Failure of Urban Mass Transit”, Peter Gordon states, “The issue is how to balance the social costs of traffic congestion with the costs of doing something about it” (85). In the context of Los Angeles, he notes that a subway system may very well not be the solution and that often times smaller measures are a more effective way to approach the problem. However, he concedes that these measures “receive too little attention because planners and politicians seem to prefer big-expenditure (but low-benefit) projects, the grand designs rather than the modest steps” (86).

Is a mass transit system worth the investment then? In a study entitled, “Effects of Urban Rail Transit Expansions: Evidence from Sixteen Cities, 1970–2000”, authors Nathaniel Baum-Snow and Matthew Kahn present evidence that says it may not be. They show that rail transit can be beneficial for people near central business districts of a city, yet considerably less so for those that live in the outlying suburban areas. Despite their findings, new railways continue to be built, in part because of substantial subsidies from the federal government (195). Additionally, the authors mention that by increasing funding for rail transit, money could be taken away from the more cost-effective bus systems, which in turn would negatively affect their ridership.

Regarding ways to implement or improve a mass transit system, Alan Black documented the Chicago Area Transportation Study during the late 1950’s where the rational planning model was utilized to prepare a transportation plan for the city of Chicago. Ten steps were used in this process, beginning with data collection and ending with implementation and monitoring. Black notes that this project showed that the rational planning model could be used effectively in city planning, but that this case was unique in that it demonstrated an apolitical approach that was essentially free from outside influences. If planners wish to produce change, however, a political aspect must be included even though it may make the process more difficult. To echo this point, Black ends his article by stating, “Certainly it remains a challenge to the planning profession to combine rational planning and political influence successfully” (36).

On a more basic level we must also consider what type of person would prefer to use a means of public transportation vs. driving their own car (outside of the standard reasons for doing so, e.g. cost-efficiency, faster travel times). Authors Mark Van Vugt, Paul Van Lange and Ree Meertens approach the question by first categorizing individuals as either “prosocial” or “proself”. Using the interdependence theory as a basis, they state that “the decision to commute by car or by public transportation can be interpreted as a choice between the pursuit of a person’s own immediate outcomes (i.e., personal convenience) versus a concern with the collective well-being in the long run (i.e., our environment)” (260). Social value orientations are examined in this study, which confirms the authors’ initial predictions that prosocial individuals are indeed more likely to commute using public transportation as they are generally more concerned with the overall collective welfare.

Lastly, in his article, “Renaissance of Public Transport in the United States?”, John Pucher mentions that cities with public transit felt a decline in ridership in the early 90’s, but saw a rebound in use later that decade, most predominantly with rail passengers. By examining public transport trends in the New York area, Pucher states that the initial decline was contributed to competition with the automobile and lower gas prices, while an economic boom and stable passenger fares led to the increased travel from 1995 – 2000. “Increased travel demand directly benefited public transport, but it also helped to raise passenger levels by forcing travelers off the increasingly congested streets and highways and onto subways and suburban trains” (43). Given our current economic status, what this implies for today’s mass transit systems remains to be seen.