Neal R. Peirce/Syndicated columnist The public transit debate: a defense from the right

IS the money we spend on public transportation systems really wasted?

Hear the drumfire of criticism that comes from libertarians, anti-taxers and status quo apologists, and you might think so.

Despite billions of dollars invested in public transit, they argue, it's a lost cause. Ridership is down from 23 billion yearly during World War II to 8 billion now. Count all local trips Americans make, and only 1 percent or 2 percent of them are by public transit. Confine your calculation to commuting trips in metro regions, and buses and rails still account for only 5 percent.

Such conservative voices as the Cato Institute, the Reason Foundation and The Wall Street Journal have argued the anti-transit case for years. And now comes a salvo from the Brookings Institution's Anthony Downs. He's arguing in recent speeches that public transit simply can't and won't alleviate the traffic congestion plaguing most American communities today.

Reason 1, Downs says: Autos are "faster, safer, more comfortable, more flexible in timing and in linking scattered origins and destinations."

Any transit expansions, he insists, "will likely be swamped by rising metropolitan populations and the use of multiple vehicles by more households." Downs predicts there'll be 60 million to 77 million more vehicles on our roads by 2020, up 30 percent to 38 percent from 1995. Rush hours are an insurmountable problem: "We cannot build road systems with enough capacity to permit all these people to move rapidly at the same time."

The Downs bottom line: "Traffic congestion is a problem that cannot be solved."

His advice? "Get yourself an air-conditioned car with a stereo radio, tape deck, phone, fax machine, portable computer, bar, and microwave oven, and commute with someone you really like."

Chuckle, chuckle. The implication is an early 21st century of ever-worsening traffic jams. More and more waking hours spent in gridlock trying to get to work or errands. Daily danger of missing business meetings, doctors' appointments, whatever. Maybe more road rage erupting around you.

The economic repercussions would be grisly, too: gridlocked roads slowing movement in goods and services, making many U.S. businesses uncompetitive in world markets. Development radiating out to ever-more distant suburbs. Air pollution getting worse.

There have to be ways to retain a mobile America. Public transit can relieve choked transportation systems.

Today, that argument's coming not just from environmentalists or the transit lobby. It's being made by Paul Weyrich, a respected leader of America's conservative movement, before and since the Reagan years.

Weyrich and his Free Congress Foundation surprised the policy world in 1996 by rejecting the libertarian idea that transit depends on government handouts, while the automobile culture is a pure product of market forces. Weyrich argued that even in 1921, when almost all transit services were privately owned and paid taxes and received no government aid, $1.4 billion of public tax money was poured into road construction. Subsidies to autos have done nothing but grow since.

This summer, Weyrich (with co-author William Lind) leapt back into the fray with a new report now available on the American Public Transit Association Web site (www.apta.com/info/online/conserve.htm). They take on the libertarian public transit "1 percent argument" and insist that bus and rail use can only be measured against private autos when people have a choice. That means, first, any trip where public transit is actually within reasonable walking distance. They report that's true now for a scant 50 percent of Americans.

"Measuring transit by counting trips it cannot compete for is like asking how much orange juice you can get from a bushel of apples," Weyrich and Lind contend.

Second, competition means having quality transit service - safe, clean, comfortable, on-time vehicles, pleasant stations, adequate parking, courteous service, schedule reliability. Surveys show only a third of American households believe they do.

The Weyrich argument is that where quality service is offered - the likes of Chicago Metra commuter lines and such light rail lines as St. Louis' MetroLink, the San Diego Trolley and Portland's Tri-Met - public transportation suddenly becomes dramatically more competitive.

Fifty to 60 percent of all commuting trips to Chicago's business district, for example, are made on public transit, of which 21 percent is Metra - an enormous boon to the region with America's fifth-worst traffic congestion.

St. Louis' MetroLink is carrying two-thirds the 1920s patronage level of the first transit line ever in that city, electrified 100 years ago. In Washington, D.C., 70 percent of all trips to the new MCI sports center are on transit.

Weyrich's study, says Wisconsin Gov. Tommy Thompson, shows "transit performs vastly better than the anti-transit studies suggest. Read it, and you'll see why even conservative state governors want more and better public transit, not less."

Another way of seeing the issue: Public transit offers the choice that a 100-percent auto system denies us. It's a mobility insurance policy for the next century. The premiums will be well worth it.(Copyright, 1999, Washington Post Writers Group)Neal R. Peirce's column appears regularly on editorial pages of The Times.

-- Common Sense (1@hotmail.com), February 15, 2000

Answers

Gee CS, wouldn't have guessed you were a conservative ;-).

zowie

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), February 15, 2000.

"Public transit offers the choice that a 100-percent auto system denies us." An undisguised strawman. . .I've not seen any person/group (granted I've looked only modestly) advocating the abolition of mass transit. Instead, I have seen people advocate reducing transit coverage to appropriate markets.
"They take on the libertarian public transit "1 percent argument" and insist that bus and rail use can only be measured against private autos when people have a choice. That means, first, any trip where public transit is actually within reasonable walking distance. They report that's true now for a scant 50 percent of Americans.
Second, competition means having quality transit service - safe, clean, comfortable, on-time vehicles, pleasant stations, adequate parking, courteous service, schedule reliability. Surveys show only a third of American households believe they do." Hmmm, they define competition in a self-serving way. I wonder if people who don't like transit would frame it differently.
In any case, for their statistics to have any meaning whatsoever, we need to see what percentage of the "well-served" (AKA 1/3 of American households) are heavy transit users. FWIW, I think this article does a good job of supporting Craig's assertion that transit is workable in certain niches (eg Chicago downtown commuters and DC's MCI sports center). That being said, it provides no evidence to refute his other assertion--transit is being pushed beyond appropriate niches.

-- Brad (knotwell@my-deja.com), February 15, 2000.

Ack, sorry 'bout the formatting

-- Brad (knotwell@my-deja.com), February 15, 2000.

As usual CS rambles on so much, one is taxed to determine his point, versus that of the material he quotes.

The point I extracted from the site (www.apta.com/info/online/conserve.htm) is that it is a call for conservatives to involve themselves in the Transportation dialog.

The first principal in the conclusion of the article says "How can conservatives help promote greater efficiency in transit systems? First, they must take enough interest in public transit to be able to determine which systems are efficient and which are not. Those which are efficient may deserve conservative support when the question of funding arises; those which are not should probably be pressured by conservatives to change some of their policies.

Is this not exactly what Craig is attempting to do?

CS states, "NoRead it, and you'll see why even conservative state governors want more and better public transit, not less." and....Another way of seeing the issue: Public transit offers the choice that a 100-percent auto system denies us. It's a mobility insurance policy for the next century. The premiums will be well worth it"

CS also has a comprehension problem?

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), February 16, 2000.

to Brad: You write: "I've not seen any person/group (granted I've looked only modestly) advocating the abolition of mass transit."

Well, you might want to read the text of the Transportation Initiative (Initiative 711). For all intensive purposes, it does abolish mass transit. The initiative is quite bizarre, actually, as it attempts to override the wishes of the voters of various counties.

The initiative appears to say that any tax previously approved by the voters to fund transit will now be used to fund road construction by at least 90% of the tax. Since the tax will no longer be used for its original purpose, someone may challenge the tax in court, and tax will then be voided.

Therefore, the net effect of Initiative 711 will be to eliminate virtually all state and local funding for ferries and buses.

Ironically, the initiative will not affect vanpool vans, since the capital investment comes from grants via the federal government. Or, at least this is what I've been led to believe by persons working at Pierce Tranit. This is ironic, as vanpooling is my preferred method for mitigating congestion. The 90% requirement of 711 does not apply to federal funds. Who knew that Initiative 711 played into my diabolical hands???!

Equally ironic, the initiative may not be able to prevent the expenditure of funds for the construction of special on and off ramps connecting Park'n'Ride facilities to the arteries they serve. This is another enhancement I would like to see.

And, for even more irony, the initiative may finally force the WSDOT out of the ferry business, paving the way for local ferry districts. There may be some clever way of naming the local ferry districts, so they won't be impacted by the initiative. I'm not sure if this is doable. If not, bye-bye ferries.

The key is to get the state out of the ferry business. Once this happens, the project for the new Tacoma Narrows bridge cannot go forward, as the contract requires that the state prevent competition (in sharp contrast to Washington's constitution forbidding monopolies to benefit private investors). If the state no longer has a monopoloy on the ferries, then the new Tacoma Narrows bridge could, theoretically, be forced to compete with privately run ferries. This may spook the investment community, and the whole Narrows Bridge project will come crashing down (no pun intended).

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), February 17, 2000.

to Marsha: You write: "Those which are efficient may deserve conservative support when the question of funding arises; those which are not should probably be pressured by conservatives to change some of their policies.

Is this not exactly what Craig is attempting to do?"

Actually, no. Craig (and probably you and many others) advocates privatization of transit. Therefore, in Craig's world, there is no place for public funding of transit. Perhaps, Craig might support providing vouchers to the "needy", but the transit folks would have to compete for the vouchers as private entities.

Public funding of efficient transit is the position of a moderate (like me). Unlimited funding of transit is the position of a liberal (like Ron Sims). Conservatives have made their bed, now they have to sleep in it. I'm sorry if the general public finds their extreme positions so distasteful.

Conservatives should just stop pretending to be something they're not. At least everyone knows where maddjak stands.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), February 17, 2000.