Literature review: mass transit

Bibliography

Horton, F. E., Louvier, J., & Reynolds, D. R. (1973). Mass Transit Utilitization: Individual Response Data Inputs. Economic Geography , 122-133.

Orski, K. (1977). Mass Transit Versus Highways. American Association for the Advancement of Science , 7.

Poister, T. H., & Van Slyke, D. M. (2002). Strategic Management Innovations in State Transportation Departments. Public Performance and Management Review , 58-74.

Rosengrant, S. (2001). Sound Move: The Debate Over Seattle's Regional Transit System. Kennedy School of Government Case Program .

Sherman, R. (1971). Congestion Interdependence and Urban Transit Fares. Econometrica , 565-576.

Stokes, B. (1973). Bay Area Rapid Transit: A Transportation Planning Breakthrough. Public Administration Review , 206-214.

Wilkinson, B. (1997). Nonmotorized Transportation: The Forgotten Modes. Annals of the American Academy of Political Science , 87-93.

Due to the urban sprawl seen in the United States in recent decades, mass transit has become a necessity. It has been in use in many of the older cities, including New York City, Chicago, and Washington, D.C. These cities have established subway and bus systems in place. Many other cities have a bus system in place.

However, the trouble comes in the relatively newer cities that are dealing with massive growth in a short amount of time. When expanding outwards from the city itself, planners built homes, schools, and office complexes, etc. Planning an effective mass transit system came after the growth and build up had occurred. How does one create a rail system or a more extensive bus system that will not create more congestion on the streets? What are some the problems that city planners are seeing in their attempt to deal effectively with this congestion problem? What are the best solutions to the urban sprawl that has occurred and will continue to do so?

Most major cities in the United States have grown outward away from the city limits. “Lavish federal and state subsidies for highway building have stimulated suburbs to spread even farther, and driving has ballooned.”¹ The population has left the city and the government has created a road system that encouraged settling away from the city. According to Benjamin Ross, the highway lobby has been instrumental in advocating for more roads and discouraging mass transit systems. Another player in this problem are the local officials. Their “enthusiasm for rail transit investments of questionable transportation merit has also been underwritten by a dubious trend toward earmarking state and local tax revenues to finance transit capital spending.”² These officials at the city level are not looking at long-term solutions. The money involved negatively influences their decision making and the transportation issue continues to worsen. Related to this problem are the transportation policies implemented to solve the issue. These policies must always keep in mind the unique issues that the city brings to the table. These issues must be properly addressed so that the policies being made will reflect their unique situation. “The success of new mass transit railway projects is…very much dependent on the underlying transport policies to secure a healthy environment for their operation and development.”³

A report published by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in April of 2008 offers some solutions to the many problems facing the United States regarding its transportation problems. They include “…placing greater emphasis on economic needs and issues when formulating national transportation policies, plans, and programs…also developing a national consensus among citizens, businesses, and political leaders on the importance of increasing investments in the transportation infrastructure.”⁴ This is obviously a national approach to solving the transportation problems, but these ideas can be applied at the local level. Another solution discussed is called “Smart Growth”. Benjamin Ross discusses this idea,”…the movement to concentrate new development in walkable, mixed-use neighborhoods.”⁵ Offering the community the option to live in an environment where everything is within walking distance offers a good solution to the increasing traffic congestion. However, trying to convince the population of this convenient lifestyle might be difficult. Changing the perceptions of individuals can be challenging. Another author discusses the benefits of mixed-use areas in regards to a light-rail system. “(The light-rail system) can also help cities manage growth by encouraging development around transit centers, and by providing transfer points to and from other transportation systems within cities.”⁶ Solutions to this problem will require sacrifices from every player involved. That includes the community, the local and state officials and the national bureaucracy. The question remains whether they can all work cohesively with each other to ease the burden of traffic congestion.

The players involved in this serious issue must realize that limiting the transportation congestion is the overall goal. As evidenced in current research, many issues are at play and having them all be compatible with each other is unlikely. The next best solution is to make sure that options are seriously considered and implemented to the highest degree possible. The players must look at the bigger picture. Everyone has and will be affected by the massive congestion and they must realize the role that mass transit will play in the solution to the growth around the nation and the world.

Bibliography

Hansen, Brett. “Light-Rail Projects Provide Options, Help Manage Growth.” Civil

Reid, Robert. “U.S. Chamber of Commerce Report Outlines Transportation

Challenges.” Civil Engineering. 78(5): 30-34.
Ross, Benjamin. “Stuck in Traffic.” Dissent. 53 (3): 60-64.
Tang, Simon and Lo, Hong K.. “The Impact of Public Transport Policy on the Viability

and Sustainability of Mass Railway Transit-The Hong Kong Experience.” Transportation Research Part A: Policy & Practice 42 (4) 563-576.

The fundamental problem with mass transit is funding. Much of the literature focusing in this issue is dominated by this issue, and for good cause. While mass transit is a muli-variable issue, including environmental impacts, efficiency of location, and effectiveness of use, many projects are ultimately decided by the amount of the price tag and who gets stuck with it (Wachs 2003). Prior to World War II much of the public transit was privately owned and operated, though profits were slight. Gas rationings and a decreased automobile production during the war years helped to inflate ridership during the 40’s. This soon ended. By 1963 some 194 public transit companies closed their doors (Wachs 1989). Many cities and states looked for federal assistance.

The federal government had already created a culture of transportation subsidization. Under the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways of 1956, which created a national network of highways across the continent, states were responsible for as little as 10% of the cost. Soon these subsidies were used for local freeways and expressways to connect downtowns to new suburbs (Wachs 1989). By the early 60’s Congress had enacted new subsidy programs to save the failing public transit.

Mass transit systems have increasingly used federal funds for operating costs instead of capital improvements, with on average about 60% going toward salaried workers alone (Smith 1990). This caused Congress to begin allocating funds by measures of efficiency and effectiveness. These terms, however, were quite vague, which spurred national conferences in the late 70’s to define these issues. Their conclusions were hardly much more concrete as Gleason and Barnum have shown how easily it still is to skew the efficiency ratios (1982). For example, one frequently used measure of efficiency is the cost per passenger mile ratio which takes into account fuel, maintenance, salary, etc, that it takes to move a passenger a certain distance. This simple ratio shows how many people can be moved for a cheap price, but by not accounting for speed or time the numbers can be easily skewed to show a greater level of efficiency (Gleason and Barnum 1978).

As with most federal funds, states are more than willing to receive them but very reluctant to concede either management or the funds themselves. Once pork has been won it is expected to keep flowing. Dilger uses the passage and reauthorization of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) as a good example. ISTEA devolved from a description of state-local boundaries on transportation policy to a debate of how much each congressional district should be allotted (1998). Ideals of federalism gave way to the politicians’ claims to have brought home the pork to their respective state.

So what does the future of mass transit look like? It will continue to be a mixture of public/private cooperation with perhaps more of an emphasis on local taxes and fees for financing. Moving people out of their cars into mass transit will constitute the largest hurdle. Pricing people off of the streets through tolls and fees seems the most practical. Electronic toll collection is advocated as the most cost efficient procedure (Wachs 2003). More focus should be spent on educating the public on alternative means of travel and more research and development should be done to adapt public mass transit to ever changing lifestyles of riders.

References

Dilger, Robert Jay. 1998. TEA-21: Transportation Policy, Pork Barrel Politics, and American

Federalism. Publius 28 (1) 49-69.

Gleason, John M., and Darold T. Barnum. 1978. Caveats Concerning Efficiency/Effectiveness

Measures of Mass Transit Performance. Management Science 24 (16) 1777-

1778.

Productivity: Performance Measures in Urban Transit. Management Science 28

(4) 379-386.

Smith, Mary F., Nabil Y. Razzouk, and Scott A. Richardson. 1990. The Role of Marketing in

Mass Transit: An Empirical Investigation. Transportation Journal 30 (1) 30-

35.

from the Brookings Institution Series on Transportation Reform.

Wachs, Martin. 1989. U.S. Transit Subsidy Policy: In Need of Reform. Science, New Series,

244 (4912) 1545-1549.

Mass transit is a vital system to any major industrial society. Major infrastructure affects all other pieces of a modern city. When studying modern transit systems one must first understand how they affect the local economy. A new emerging factor is also how they affect the local environment. Going “green” has become a large topic in public policy today.

In Mass Transit: Problem and Promise, Patricia George gives an outline on the pros and cons of mass transit systems. George warns developers against not coordinating with those concerned with mass transit planning. She believes this is one of the biggest mistakes made by societies today. Some of the problems this can lead to she cites as: “Social and economical discrimination, unintelligent, inefficient planning, and failure to realize opportunities for visually exciting urban form”. (George 1968, Pg. 39) In the end she humorously suggests the solution to all of America’s problems as bicycles. Yet even they would require some sort of organized transport system.

Many mass transit systems rely on toll roads for revenue. Recent price increases for gas and everyday commodities have caused drivers to take any alternative possible to a toll road. This large reliance on the income of toll roads is creating a budget crisis in toll dependent states. Judy Keen cites statistics from the finance director for West Virginia’s parkway authority, in Gas Prices Driving Away Toll Revenue. “In June (2008), revenue from passenger-car tolls was down 7.3% from June 2007, and tolls paid by commercial drivers on the state’s 88 miles of toll roads declined 4%.” (Keen 2008, Pg. 1) This decline in revenue has a ripple affect on the local economy. They may no longer be able to go ahead with many improvement projects. Money might need to be redirected from another state program to assist with road repair. All of these are issues that need to be considered by anyone dealing in mass transit public policy.

Going “green” or considering the environment is a priority for many people today. Transit systems can be a large culprit of pollution so solutions are being examined at all angles. In an article for Science News, written in 1974, J.M Lutin believed that increasing mass transit will barely have any positive affect on the environment. He believed that, “Just increasing mass transit facilities and their use can have only very limited impact of efforts to improves energy conservation and the economy…” (Lutin 1974, Pg. 167) The author believes that Americans are so “in love” with their cars there would be to persuading them, even when eliminating mass transit fares, to use transit systems. With the rising gas prices today I would imagine many of those polled for this study would change their minds about free mass transit systems.

If we examine a 2007 study in Lahore, Pakistan we see a more extreme view of mass transit and the environment. “In Lahore 1,250 people die annually because of air pollution.” (Aziz 2008, Pg. 25) Currently their mass transit system is so disorganized it causes an extreme amount of air pollution. This paper recommends two solutions for mass transit in a city like Lahore. It also warns many growing cities to keep such findings in mind when developing to prevent such dysfunction from ever occurring.

Finally, we have a paper on green architecture by Cathleen McGuigan. This appears to be an opinion article but brings up a very valid point. If green architecture is not ascetically pleasing it may not fare well in American culture. Hybrid cars, parks, bridges, transit systems, and office building are all affected by this new form of architecture. If the new highway system is an eye sore many city planners will not accept it even if it may be the most environmentally friendly version. McGuigan warns against the “green fad”. She believes that we still need common sense planning or citizens and law makers alike will not approve new structures for the sole reason that they are environmentally friendly.

References:

Aziz, Amer. Erroneous Mass Transit System and its Tended Relationship with Motor Vehicular Air Pollution. Environmental Monitor Assessment. 137: 25-33.2008

George, Patricia Conway. Mass Transit: Problem and Promise. Design Quarterly, No. 71, pp.3-39.1968

Keen, Judy. Gas Prices Driving Away Toll Revenue. USA Today, Jul. 31, 2008.

Lutin, J.M. Mass Transit: Limited Impact. Science News, Vol. 109, No. 11, Mar. 13, 1967. pp.167

McGuigan, Cathleen. The Bad News About Green Architecture. Newsweek. New York: Vol. 152, Iss.11, Sep. 15, 2008.