Literature review: mass transit

References

Baum-Snow, Nathaniel and Matthew E. Kahn. “Effects of Urban Rail Transit Expansions: Evidence from Sixteen Cities, 1970–2000.” Brookings-Wharton Papers on Urban Affairs. (2005), pp. 147 – 206

Journal of Planning Education and Research, Vol. 10, No. 1 (1990), pp. 27 – 37

Gordon, Peter and Harry Richardson. “Notes from Underground: The Failure of Urban Mass Transit.” Public Interest, 94 (1989:Winter), pp. 77 – 86

Pucher, John. “Renaissance of Public Transport in the United States?” Transportation Quarterly. Vol. 56, no. 1 (Winter 2002), pp. 33 – 49

United States. United States Congress - Office of Technology Assessment. Assessment of Community Planning for Mass Transit: Volume 9-Seattle Case Study. February 1976

Van Vugt, Mark, Van Lange, Paul, Meertens, R. “Car Versus Public Transportation? The Role of Social Value Orientations in a Real-Life Social Dilemma.” Journal of Applied Social Psychology. Volume 25, Issue 3, pp. 258 – 278

In 1972, the Puget Sound Governmental Conference, King County, the city of Renton, the city of Bellevue, and city of Seattle jointly sponsored a planning on a transit system for the Seattle Metropolitan area. This effort followed to previous unsuccessful attempts to gain voter approval for a rapid transit system for the area. (Onibokum and Curry, 1976).

The study was designed to see what roles the citizens thought they should play as well as those roles for the city planners in the planning process, it also looked to see if the citizens felt their input was being listened to and their needs being met. Certain pertinent facts were corroborated or borne out by the findings of this study: Most citizens realistically understood what area or phases of transit plan they actually influenced. They believed in and they were contented with the fact that the planners sincerely made an effort to listen and to use their ideas in developing such aspects of the system as routes and fares. (Onibokum and Curry, 1976.).

One basic criticism of the strategy on which the citizen program was based is the way it selected it participants. Voters were the primary group. While this was a good strategy it did not answer the need to actively seek input from the user group, here, regular transit users (i.e. elderly, low-income, youth). Especially with a transit system, success of the project ultimately depends on its ability to increase mobility of people – those who commute as well as those who have no other means of transportation. The voter is needed to approve the plan the user is needed to help design a system that meets his needs. (Onibokum and Curry, 1976).

When Robert Poole, Director of Transportation Studies at the Reason Foundation, testified for the members of the Joint Economic Committee he stated as a country the United States was failing in the methods and policies being used to address congestion. He stated that as a nation we have been making major investments in two forms of urban transportation: HOV lanes and mass transit. Unfortunately, the 2000 census figures revealed that in most cities, a smaller fraction of people carpooled to work in 2000 than in 1990. Likewise a smaller fraction used transit to get to work in 2000 than in 1990. And since the population has continued to increase, we have even more people trying to use pretty much the same amount of freeway capacity to get to work (Poole, 2003).

Poole’s suggestion for dealing with this problem was to shift the operating principle of HOV lanes to HOT lanes – that’s high occupancy toll lanes. Convert them to high-speed premium lanes which drivers can use by paying a market price and which truly high-occupant vehicles – buses and vanpools- can use for free. Use toll the toll revenue stream to support large-scale toll revenue bond issues, to generate billions of dollars needed to build out the existing HOV facilities into a complete seamless network spanning most of the metro area’s freeway system. Encourage transit agency to operate large-scale regional express bus service on this seamless, high-speed network. (Poole, 2003)

In 2005 Proceedings from the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation published a study that aimed to introduce the most optimal mass transit system at the administration city which was to be constructed away from the Daejeon metropolitan area in Korea. (Kim et al. 2005). They broke the study down into three phases to coincide with population growth and then with consideration to regional transport system (between the city and metropolitan area). Then, a mass transit system inside this city as urban transit is proposed. They researched mass transit systems used abroad and had twenty experts review the results. Lastly, they discussed the budget of 2.38 billion dollars and its breakdown between the government and private capital investment. (Kim et al., 2005)

The remaining two articles discuss mass transit safety. They discuss policing this type of transportation and terrorism in public transportation.

Policing mass transit systems presents distinct challenges to law enforcement. The primary goal of policing mass transit is twofold –to enhance transit system safety and reduce the fear of crime on transit systems. When riders perceive a transit system as unsafe, they will not use it. (Nelson, 1997).

Nelson suggests that there is a need to combat not just the actual crime that occurs on mass transit but the perception of crime is also a factor in maintaining rider ship. One of the best ways to combat both of these issues is with a high profile police presence usually maintained through regular patrols. In addition the patrol has to be sensitive to the relation between the mass transit system and the community that it serves. The end goal should be to make riders feel safe by ensuring that they are safe. (Nelson, 1997)

In 2005, Todd Litman presented to the Victoria Transport Policy Institute on the topic of Terrorism, Transit and Public Safety; Evaluating the Risks. He evaluated the overall safety of public transit, taking into account all risks, including recent terrorist attacks. He determined that overall it was an extremely safe mode of travel with total per passenger-mile fatality rates approximately one-tenth that of automobile travel. However, he states to maintain this safety record the public and governments in general cannot overreact to terrorist threats. He states that the outcome would be shift by the public to less save modes of transportation and reduced support by policy makers to public transit. (Litman, 2005).

There is a need to be responsible in dealing with mass transit accidents. Litman notes a study, which indicated in the three months after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, shifts from air to automobile travel caused several hundred additional roadway traffic fatalities. Since air travel is safer per mile than driving, particularly on rural roads, total travel deaths increased. Had these trends continued for more than a year, the additional deaths would have exceeded the September 11 terrorist deaths. Because of actions by governments and the airline industry to increase air travel security, these travel shifts have reducing, reducing excess traffic deaths. (Litman, 2005). Therefore there is a responsibility to correctly access the danger, increase security if need be, but to acknowledge the continued safety and benefit of these transportation systems.

Though the topics in these articles varied there were a number of lessons learned. The attempt to create a mass transit system needs both the approval and the input from the perspective community (Seattle). It also is reliant upon research and population studies to determine the best type of transit systems to address current needs and to grow with population growth (Korea). An established system needs to be reviewed and improved upon so that its use is efficient as well as actually being taken advantage up by the subject population (Poole). And lastly safety issues need to be addressed so that actual safety is achieved in both reality and perception (Policing and Terrorism articles).

Kim, Sigon, Hwangbae Kim, YoungTae Lim, and Kijung Kum. “A conceptual Plan of Mass Transit Systems at the Administration City in Korea”. Proceedings of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol 5. (2005) pp 136-147

Litman, Todd. “Terrorism, Transit and Public Safety: Evaluating the Risks”. Victoria Transport Policy Institute. December 2, 2005.

Nelson, Kurt R. “Policing Mass Transit: Serving a Unique Community”. FBI Publications – Law Enforcement Bulletin. January 1997

Onibokun, Adepoju G. and Martha Curry. “An Ideology of Citizen Participation: The Metropolitan Seattle Transit Case Study”. Public Administration Review. Vol. 36 No. 3 (May-Jun, 1976) pp. 269-277.

Poole, Robert W. Jr. “Hot Networks: A New Plan for Congestion Relief and Better Transit”. Testimony of Robert W Poole, Jr., Director of Transportation Studies. Reason Foundation. Presented to the Joint Economic Committee, May 6, 2003.

Commuting in the United States has typically been defined by American’s love for their cars. The U.S. has been in a unique position relative to Western Europe and Japan. Automobile purchases in the U.S. continue to rise despite rising oil prices. This is a direct result of the United States not being as dependent on foreign oil as is Western Europe. (Nye 1999) There are, however, other reasons, for instance George Smerk attributes the failure of mass transit in the United States to the creation of the Ford Model-T. (Smerk 1986) The introduction of the Model-T coincided with the last major effort of mass transit the New York tunnel system. (85) The introduction of affordable cars to Europe did not begin until much more recent times.

Ti Hsu and Dennis McDermott identify two types of mass transit: fixed route and random systems. The latter refers to personal automobiles “acting as free agents on a vast network of roadways.” (1977, 37) The former refers to a rail based network or bus transit. The increased usage of personal automobiles is causing several problems noted throughout the literature among which are: traffic congestion, environmental pollution, scarce urban parking, and dependence on foreign oil. These reasons necessitate, according to the literature, a move towards more sustainable mass transit systems. A move towards either bus routes or rail networks in urban areas is attributed to a host of factors. Hsu and McDermott attribute the failure of mass transit success in urban areas to the wealth of suburban areas. These people have greater amounts of wealth and are therefore able to spend money on luxuries such as vehicles to commute. (43) Others point to lax taxes and not enough incentives, relative to Europe, to entice commuters to use mass transit systems. (Perch 1982) Western Europe has several ways of making mass transit more attractive to commuters including high taxes on gas, more amenable roads to bus travel, and higher taxes for vehicles with poor gas mileage. (48) Other reasons include the availability of cheap gas in the U.S. (Campbell 2005) Cheap gas coupled with affordable vehicles has caused Americans to forego mass transit in preference of personal vehicles. In fact actions are taken contrary to mass transit interests. In order to meet overhead costs California has had to raise levies on mass transit users. (Beckman and Ingraham 1965)

The literature on mass transit is also debated on other grounds including the benefits or negative externalities of mass transit in urban areas. The optimists point towards the creation of new centers of the city for development, increase the quality of residential areas, promote development in rural areas, and may promote urban reconstruction. (Gospodini 2005) This, however, is debated skeptics point to the spread of crime into urban areas which would lead to the devaluation of housing. (George 1968; Kim et al 2007) Crime victimization tends to be in poorer areas and the advent of mass transit would allow the poor to commute to urban areas easier. Another problem inherent in the aforementioned is that the poor will likely live closer to the points of access to mass transit which would cause others in the suburbs to either be more cautious when using mass transit or simply not use mass transit at all. Still Robert Cervero is able to show that mass transit systems lead to development of new commercial industries within 300 yards of access points which leads to further use of transit systems. (1995)

Another criticism of mass transit is that it is of limited impact or is economically unjustified. (Grieco 1976) It is of limited impact because the mass transit system would have to be coupled with measures which restrict automobile use or make automobile use less attractive. In other words drivers would have to be penalized; an efficient mass transit system would not work in and of itself in the U.S.

Others point to the need for policy reform in the United States as the catalysts needed for successful transit programs. Martin Wachs unveils the need for increased trips per hour to urban areas. (1989) This author believes that it is insufficient routes to urban areas which cause those in the suburban areas to neglect mass transit. It is not the transit systems fault it is policy makers inability to adapt to new conditions which make mass transit less effective. The author makes some comparative analysis with Western Europe to make his point more clear. He takes note of similar geographical areas and income levels in both regions and concludes it is a host of factors that make mass transit successful in Europe and fail in the U.S. including fewer routes per hour. (1549)

There are other institutional reasons for mass transit success in Europe and failure in the U.S. In Europe transit planners are centrally located so they may make decisions on where to place rail systems without the consent of the local government; whereas in the U.S. local governments must first approve any such measure. (Beckman and Ingraham 1965)

Works Cited

Beckman, Norman and Page Ingraham. “The States and Urban Areas,” Law and Contemporary Problems Vol 30 No 1 (Winter 1965): 76-102

Campbell, David. “The Biopolitics of Security: Oil, Empire, and the Sports Utility

Nye, David. “Path Insistence: Comparing European and American Attitudes Toward Energy,” Journal of International Affairs Vol 53 No 1 (Fall 1999): 129-148.

Pucher, John “Who Benefits from Transit Subsidies Recent Evidence from Six Metropolitan Cities,” Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 17A No 1 (1983): 39-50.

Smerk, George. “Urban Mass Transportation: From Private to Public to Privatization,” ransportation Journal (Fall 1986): 83-91.

Wachs, Martin “U.S. Transit Subsidy Policy: In Need of Reform,” Science Vol 244 No 4912 (June 1989): 1545-1549.

As populations grow across the United States and the world, more efficient modes of transportation must be developed in urban areas. One case study of Seattle mass transit details the difficulties of creating an efficient system of public transportation, including achieving enough public support to have the initiative approved. However, the case details policies as old as 1996. Since then, new technologies and research methods have been developed as more people study the issue of transportation.

Seattle became a battleground for transportation policy as early as the 1950’s, but the pinnacle occurred in 1996 when proponents and opponents of a rail system took the issue to a vote again. In order to achieve more support, the designers of the plan compromised by limiting the rail system and relying more heavily on increases in bussing and carpool lanes. Unfortunately, the projections for success of the plan were not on target, and the plan was less successful than hoped as costs exceeded expectations. (Kennedy School of Government)

Since then, many other cities have faced similar problems of growth leading to congestion on the roads. One example is the Washington, D.C. area. An already extensive metro system including busses, rail, and other features is evolving to meet new needs. Two new proposed lines, the Purple Line and Silver Line are among the possible solutions. After an in depth costs and benefits analysis done by Sam Schwartz Engineering for the City of Chevy Chase (an affected area), it was discovered that although an addition to the MetroRail would be an easy sell to the public, a revision of bussing policy to include a new route would be much more efficient. What is important of this study is that it was conducted by an outside source and studied all proposed options to determine the best solution based on multiple variables. (Sam Schwartz Engineering)

Similarly, there seems to be a trend toward better research of options before decisions regarding mass transit. One article details the process for best evaluating options based on many variables to determine the most effective transit system for a given area as well as requirements that should be met (Thanh, et al). It seems that in many cases, such as the case discussed above for the Purple Line and another case in Bogota, studies are leaning toward more effective bussing rather than rail systems (Gilbert).

Unfortunately, the issue of transportation in the United States is not an easy one to solve. Transportation by individual vehicle is convenient and has become a staple of everyday life in America. People have become used to running multiple errands on their way to and from work, reducing the desirability of public transportation (Kennedy School of Government 14-15). The United States, though, is falling behind its international counterparts. A U.S. Chamber of Commerce article notes “America’s transportation system is eroding through underinvestment even as its global competitors are building more highways, mass transit systems, rail lines, ports, and airports” (30). It seems that the best solutions now are good planning, encouragement of people to use existing mass transit options, and development of well-researched plans for new transportation systems, as in the case of Smart Growth in Arlington, VA and Silver Spring, MD (Goffman).

Works Cited

Gilbert, Alan. “Bus Rapid Transit: Is Transmilenio a Miracle Cure?” Transport Reviews, Jul 2008, Vol. 28 Issue 4, p439-467.

Goffman, Ethan. “Smart Growth.” E - The Environmental Magazine, Nov/Dec 2006, Vol. 17 Issue 6, p21-24.

Kennedy School of Government. “Sound Move.” President and Fellows of Harvard College. 2001. C14-01-1639.0

Reid, Robert L. “TRANSPORTATION: U.S. Chamber of Commerce Report Outlines Transportation Challenges.” Civil Engineering (08857024), May 2008, Vol. 78 Issue 5, p30-34.

Sam Schwartz Engineering. “Analysis of MTA Purple Line Alternatives and Alignments.” April 3, 2008.

Thanh, V. H.; Roberts, C.; Tobias, A. M.; Williams, J.; Stirling, A.; Madelin, K.. “Decision support at the wheel–rail interface: the development of system functional requirements,” Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers -- Part F -- Journal of Rail & Rapid Transit, Jun 2008, Vol. 222 Issue 2, p195-206.

There seems to be two views that dominate the literature when it comes to public transit in urban areas. On one side you have advocates for a rail-less mass transit system, such as buses and a bus rapid transit. The other side consists of advocates for a rail system, such as a light rail system or a metro. As seen in the case study of Seattle’s Regional Transit System, most of the arguments revolve around the amount of money needed to fund these systems. Advocates for a rail-less transit say that the rail system will cost too much money and not relieve the congestion that it promises. Rail systems usually take a long time and the construction of the rail system will also hinder congestion. Some of the price will have to be met by raising taxes, which is very unpopular with citizens. Rail advocates on the other hand say that rail transit system will decrease congestion while improving such intangibles such as air pollution, health benefits, protecting open space, and even health benefits (Stokes, MacDonald, &Ridgeway, 2007). First I will focus on the bus transit system.

There have been successful bus transit systems, especially the bus rapid transit systems of Curitiba, Brazil and Bogota, Columbia. Prior to the bus rapid transit system in Bogota, called the TransMilenio, the roads were very chaotic with independently owned buses competing for passengers, which caused people to use more cars than the unstable bus system. As Alan Gilbert (2008), from the University College London in London, quotes in his research, “More cars on the roads produce increasingly dysfunctional cities involving ever increasing congestion, loss of quality of life, and most likely as a result, decreasing economic productivity and competiveness.” With this in mind, the TransMilenio was built to help speed up traffic, cut air pollution, and improved safety along the corridors they traveled on. The TransMilenio’s efficiency, in cutting down congestion, is also very equivalent to most rail based systems, provided the corridor volume is not too high. It can also accommodate substantial passenger flows. The TransMilenio has been very successful in improving the mass transit in the urban city while maintaining a relatively cheap cost. Phase I and Phase II, combined, costs 426.1 million dollars (Gilbert, 2008). In comparison, Seattle’s Sound Move original cost was 3.9 billion dollars (Rosegrant, 2001). TransMilenio, Phase I and Phase II, also took about 3 years to complete. There are some criticisms that are being made about the bus rapid transit. Some criticisms of the TransMilenio include the overcrowdings at the stations and on the buses, pick-pocket thieves and other crimes, and the use of illegal buses that congest the city and undermine the bus rapid transit (Gilbert, 2008).

Identifying potential demand for public transit is also very important because you don’t want to invest money into a system that is not going to be self sustaining. In his research, Xiaobai Yao (2007) explores potential demand for public transit. Yao (2007) uses multiple regression to identify predictive variables for the share of public transportation. He also uses a Need Index to measure the relative magnitude of potential demand. According to Yao (2007), a variety of reasons may influence the demand of a public transit project. In his research, Yao (2007) focuses on land use characteristics as one of his independent variables; such as population density, unemployment rate, job density, percentage of home workers, and average jobholders per household. His second independent variable consists of socioeconomic factors, such as income and car ownership. His third independent variable is network structure; by this he means the density of public transit stops. Yao’s dependant variable is the percentage of workers using public transit as their primary transportation mode for work trips. If you find that a public transit facility is available in an area of high potential demand and low existing transit coverage, it is an important signal for transit expansion. In Yao’s (2007) study, potential demand is represented by the proportion of people who may potentially us public transportation as their primary transportation mode. One criticism that Yao (2007) acknowledges is that his study relies on the assumption of the linear relationships of the variables, which may not be the case. To combat this he uses the Need Index method which he finds valid and superior (Yao, 2007).

To increase demand, one might also use research that evaluates public transit user satisfaction. Policy makers can also use research such as this by integrating their strategic plans with corrective actions and measures that can better tackle user’s perceptions and thus increasing the number of transit passengers (Tyrinopoulos & Antoniou, 2008). According to Tyrinopoulos & Antoniou (2008) policy makers can identify and analyze weak points and monitor quality levels, which is usually the goal of such research. Such research is able to develop recommendations for public transport operators and policy makers that will enable them to better understand the behavior of the users and the key factors affecting their choices in transit ridership (Tyrinopoulos & Antoniou, 2008, 2007). In their research, Tyrinopoulos & Antoniou (2008) used surveys to assess customer satisfaction, customer loyalty, and bench marks. Some of the questions asked were about on-time performance, average waiting time at terminals and stops, vehicle load, and average route speed. By increasing the satisfaction of a mass transit system, you could increase productivity and profit.

Increasing satisfaction is a way to generate an increase in ridership. Another way to increase ridership is to develop a program to get transit passes into the hands of more people. A study conducted by Badoe & Yendeti (2007) reveals that transit pass owners had a transit trip rate of about 4 times that of non-pass owners. The data for Badoe & Yendeti’s (2007) study was drawn from the 1996 Transportation Tomorrow Survey database conducted in the greater Toronto area done by telephone interview. They also found older individuals were less likely to own transit passes compared to young individuals (Badoe & Yendeti, 2007). Other findings made by Badoe & Yendeti (2007) were that households that owned two or more vehicles were less likely to purchase a transit pass as well as people with driver’s licenses. According to Badoe & Yendeti (2007) transit pass ownership status is the single most important variable associated with the daily number of transit trips made by urban residents. Limitations to this study would include that a telephone survey is not representative of the population. There is no mention whether this included cellular phones. Also, this study is drawn from a data set from 12 years ago which may not be representative of the population.

The benefits from generating more public transit ridership would theoretically include less people on the road, i.e. less traffic, and less air pollution. These intangible benefits along with a decrease in accidents and a potential increase in health are strong reasons for a public transit system. Recent research has found that there is a link between public transit and health care costs. According to Stokes, MacDonald, and Ridgeway (2007) light rail transit seems to have a role in increasing exercise patterns and reducing obesity rates among Americans. Stokes, MacDonald, and Ridgeway (2007) expand on other research which has examined the relationship between the built environment (manmade surroundings) and health. According to them, recent analysis shows that people who walk to and from public transit obtain significantly more daily physical activity than those who do not (Stokes, MacDonald, & Ridgeway, 2007). Furthermore, survey respondents who walked thirty minutes a day were significantly more likely to use the light rail transit instead of bus transit. National Household Travel Survey indicates the rail transit riders walked an average of 24 minutes a day related to transit trips (Stokes, MacDonald, & Ridgeway, 2007). This means that 29 percent of riders met the minimum required exercise recommendation of 30 minutes a day.

There are pros and cons to both rail transit systems and non-rail transit systems. Many variables have to be taken into account before a choice can be made. All of the research mentioned above and further research will help in the decision making of which kind, if any, mass transit is right for a particular city.

• 
  Stokes, R. J., MacDonald, J., and Ridgeway, G. (2008). “Estimating the effects of light rail transit on health care costs.” Health and Place. 14, 45-58.
  
• 
  Badoe, D.A. and Yendeti, M.K. (2007). “Impact of Transit-Pass Ownership on Daily Number of Trips Made by Urban Public Transit.” Journal of Urban Planning and Development. Vol. 133(4), 242-249.
  
• 
  Tyrinopoulos, Y. and Antoniou, C. (2008). “Public transit user satisfaction: Variability and policy implications.” Transport Policy. 15, 260-272.
  
• 
  Yao, X. (2007). “Where are public transit needed – Examining potential demand for public transit for commuting trips.” Computers, Environment, and Urban Systems. 31, 535-550.
  
• 
  Gilbert, A. (2008). “Bus Rapid Transit: Is Transmilenio a Miracle Cure?” Transport Reviews. 28(4), 439-467.
  

In the Kennedy Case Study, Sound Move, Susan Rosegrant outlines the particular situation of Seattle and the difficulties faced in creating a public transportation system that would simultaneously reduce traffic congestion, increase environmental conditions, and be cost-efficient for the state government. The case represents several of the problems that legislatures and community decision makers face when dealing with complex problems such as that of transportation. First, the appropriate scope of the project. In Seattle, there were numerous opponents to the original plan’s large network of rail and light rail (125 miles of rapid transit) (Rosengrant, 2001). These opponents felt that alternatives were being ignored and called for a rewriting of the plan. Second, the issue of the burden of the cost of the project and the overall cost-effectiveness once the project reaches completion. Although Seattle relied heavily in its plans on the grants from both the state and federal governments, a significant amount of money was proposed to be collected through taxes, which is always a contentious point for citizens. Finally, the overall methodology of the planning which was questioned heavily by opponents was also a difficulty (Rosengrant, 2001). Although Seattle is a vexing case with several implications and key issues, it is not unique. Transportation issues and the factors to consider when creating effective policy are themes that present themselves in all instances of public transportation policy.

When studying mass transit and public transportation a crucial aspect of the debate deals with methodology. As seen in the case study regarding Seattle’s proposal for a light rail system, much difficulty arose from time constraints and lack of cohesive strategic management. Poister and Van Slyke, in their article detailing the effectiveness of strategic management in transportation development point to the fact that policy makers must confront the fact that in order to address the public transportation problem, state Departments of Transportation must realize that there needs to be a cohesion of multimodal solutions, sustainable environmental goals, and accountability to the local constituency (Poister & Van Slyke, 2002). In Seattle, each of these were addressed to a limited degree, but were not fleshed out fully as Poister and Van Slyke’s strategic planning model suggests. For example, in Seattle policy makers were inclined to focus the brunt of the plan on light rail systems. Although updated bus systems were incorporated, the financial majority of the policy was devoted to creating a fairly extensive network of light rail transport, to be increased in coming years. By rushing the plan for the coming election, policy makers may have eliminated the possibility of greater external support for the plan by relying too heavily on light rail and making overly optimistic assumptions about its success. Even the BART system, which is considered widely to be a revolutionary transportation system (Stokes, 1973), has met with mixed results. Using strategic management, which essentially amounts to action-oriented planning that is linked to implementation, may have increased internal coherency and external support (Poister & Van Slyke, 2002).

By focusing predominantly on rail systems, Seattle also narrowly views the problem of inequality that is so heavily embedded with transportation decisions. According to Agyeman and Evans, who examine sustainability in urban areas, the “differentiation of transit quality” in many cities is likened to that of bus segregation in the 1950s (Agyeman & Evans, 2003). Public transportation must be affordable, effective, and equal for those living in inner-city communities, not simply on the transportation of suburban workers to the city center. Skewed policy plans result in unequal and unaffordable transportation and ultimately undermines the goal of public transportation – to make life easier for citizens of a given community.

In today’s society, the role of the environment and the manner in which our policies affect the environment has placed a microscope over several main policy areas, transportation being one of them. In fact, major mass transit proposals are doomed to failure if they do not garner support from environmental groups and activists. Agyeman and Evans argue for the consideration of environmental justice and sustainability in creating public transportation policy. Whereas highways and the increased use of cars during rush hour increase pollution, Agyeman and Evans argue for policy makers to focus on access rather than mobility. This encourages city planners to redevelop areas in urban centers as multi-use, eliminating the need for cars for everyday errands (Agyeman & Evans, 2003). Although complete sustainability in communities that are already well established and developed is difficult, incorporating sustainable policies into transportation plans helps to create more effective and successful mass transit.

Public opinion and individual access to the decision making process is a fundamental key to successful legislation. In Seattle, the first proposal that was rejected in the special election had limited consumer input. The planning board for Sound Move attempted greater integration of community opinions into the construction of the policy. Often, citizens are less tied to specific special interests (as Wilkinson suggests transportation policy has historically been defined by) and can define more completely the needs of the community (Wilkinson, 1997). The large input of community members via town conferences and meetings was a large factor in the reduction of light rail seen in the first proposal and that in Sound Move. Additionally, community satisfaction levels are crucial in determining the success or failure of new policies. In Horton, Louvier and Reynolds’ survey of a new Iowa public bus service, the comparison between surveys taken before the improvement and those conducted after reveal a distinct rise in satisfaction among bus users (Horton, Louvier, & Reynolds, 1973). It also provides key insights into potential future improvements. This data helps transportation planners to continually improve upon policies.

Finally, all mass transit policies need to adequately account for the financial burden of the undertaking. This not only includes the initial costs of implementing the plan and keeping the program running, but also the expected income generated from user fares. In an analysis on urban transit fares, Sherman examines rush hour congestion and the comparison of costs from highway usage and commuter trains. In order for commuter trains to be a feasible and successful form of transportation, Sherman concludes that the rush hour fare should be lower than the marginal social cost of the service (Sherman, 1971). That is, when buses and cars contribute to congestion on highways during peak hours, the best solution is to offer fares on commuter trains that are below the average. This encourages individuals to use the commuter trains, provides the service at an affordable price, and reduces highway congestion during rush hour.

There is no winning strategy for constructing effective transportation policy for every community that seeks to employ one. Each community must consider their own specific attributes in order to create a useful policy plan that will make life easier for individuals who rely on transportation. The debate among scholars and policy makers alike regarding transportation is likely to continue for several decades. However, adhering to the basic principles of strategic management, ecological consideration, and public input moves along the right track towards efficient public transportation.