Musing on Trends and Challenges of Increased Transit Use

6_2_10_rapid.jpgMetro Rapid map.  Photo: RJM Connel/Flickr

David Lazarus, in one of his recent L.A. Times columns on public
transit
, off-handly laments neglect of the "long-term promotion of
public transportation as a practical alternative to traveling by car".

Is
that what transit in Southern California in the modern age has had as
its goal? My long held suspicion is that transit as an alternative to
the automobile is mostly an empty slogan that officials speak of but
that as a practical matter receives little attention beyond lip
service. And the great danger is trends may actually be leading us
toward having transit use widen while officials and others aren’t
preparing for the many challenges this presents.

Our
present public transit system is structured to meet two markets: peak
hour commuters and the transit-dependent population (mostly made up of
folks of modest means, seniors, the disabled and youth). Over decades
service and funding structures have been built up predicated on that
being the population it serves.

With the emergence of Metro
Rapid and the growing grid of Metro Rail services the demographic that
transit draws is widening. Which actually presents challenges, both
political and practical.

A peek at what we may be facing is
the huge spike in transit use that occurred when gasoline bolted past
$4 a gallon in 2008 — agencies struggled to meet the demand, often
bringing out of mothballs old buses that had historically been part of
a reserve fleet.

Because nearly all purchases of transit
equipment by public agencies involve federal capital funding, rather
stringent "buy america" provisions constrain the universe of
manufactures that can bid. It can often be upwards of 24 months from
when an order is made before deliver occurs, given the limited capacity
to manufacture buses to serve the American market. Also most urban
areas are extremely difficult to facilitate expansion of bus repair and
storage facilities. Some of this is NIMBYism (folks don’t want a bus
yard in their neighborhood) plus in many cases plots of land large
enough for a bus yard are few and far between (or entail the long
difficult process of building on a brownfield). While many may think a
lot more use of transit would be a good thing the transit
providers right are now are nowhere near ready to handle it.

Then one tries to contemplate where the funding would come from to have
transit as the main mode of mobility for a significant portion of the
urban population. I think that takes us to about the limits of any
possible prognostication being possible. Perhaps we need a more honest
and engaged dialogue on these issues. I certainly think we are falling
far short of that at the moment. The American landscape is evolving and
I fear we are not remotely preparing for what it will need to fulfill
its ultimate aim of better cities and better lifes for the people
therein. Transit that is good enough won’t cut it.

  • More funding has to come from people giving transit a try, and then working it into their routine somehow. In some neighborhoods it will be easiest for people to park and ride. In cities with more widespread transit ridership the farebox recovery ratio tends to be higher, so some of the challenge of increasing use can be mitigated by that.

    Ask not what transit can do for you, ask what you can do for transit (and transit supporting land uses) :) That’s the only way it can go from where it is now to where it needs to be. It won’t be easy. Measure R doesn’t guarantee anything without people willing to step up support what’s already there.

  • JW

    I would say transit dependent and peak-hour commuters on either long, congested routes or where parking is difficult/costly.

    I think that the bus service in LA is pretty good, considering its challenges. For transit ridership to increase among all demographics, all it may take is a shift in government leadership. Mayor V may be chasing billions for a subway, but he appoints a transportation deputy who until recently commuted via SOV Hummer. Compare his take to Mayors in other big cities (Chicago, NY) or even smaller cities (Seattle).

  • In addition to the needed heavy and light rail projects in the funded portion, Tier 1 & 2 unfunded portion, and beyond in Metro’s Long Range Transportation Plan that this county needs, we should also have a network of transit-only lanes running buses and/or streetcars on major corridors.

    If we would also put transit-only lanes with buses and streetcars on some of these corridors that will never see grade-separated rail, within a decade we could provide real mobility alternatives to automobile usage.

    However, good luck getting past the political firestorm of angry motorists and shop owners about their lanes of traffic/parking being taken away for any form of transit. It only took 30 seconds after the bus-only lanes on Wilshire Blvd. in West Los Angeles were put in for the successful lobbying to begin to have them repealed.

  • Erik G.

    It would be interesting to see if the “Buy America” clause was challenged at the WTO level. It is protectionist nonsense and has failed miserably given that there are only two truly U.S. companies left in the bus building business (El Dorado and Gillig) and none in the rail car business.

  • Well… someone has to challenge it in WTO… WTO doesn’t initial any review on its own. And quite frankly, no one in their right mind is going to challenge the US on our bus procurement policy. It’s easier for the Europeans to just set up shop here and assemble buses in non-union states to compete – which is exactly what they have done.

    Of all the illegal trade barriers that the US throws up, “Buy America” provision in public transit vehicles is pretty low on the list of flagrant violation of fair trade policy. Hows for starters, our total abdication of NAFTA agreement on open boarders for trucks? That’s our own laws, not international treaty that we are violating by keeping the Mexican drivers out.

  • Luckily, smart people are thinking about problems similar to this: http://www.rand.org/pubs/rgs_dissertations/2010/RAND_RGSD261.pdf#100

ALSO ON STREETSBLOG

Transit-Oriented Development and Communities of Color: A Field Report

|
(This article first appeared in Progressive Planner, the official magazine of the Planner’s Network and is reprinted with the author’s permission.  Gen Fujioka is the senior policy advocate with the National Coalition for Asian Pacific American Community Development. This article was written in collaboration with the Urban Communities of Color Caucus which seeks to advance […]

Dana Gabbard’s rules of transit advocacy (2000 version)

|
In 2000 the industry group for public transit agencies in California, the California Transit Association, held its Fall Conference and Expo at the Westin Hotel near LAX. I was invited to participate in a panel discussion about transit activists and our relationship with agencies, the legislature, regulatory entities etc. As a bonus I presented a […]

From Russia, with Transit Love

|
View of a departing Moscow subway train. All Photos: Alexander Friedman I just returned from a trip to Moscow and noticed an interesting trend. Despite the economic slowdown, which Russia is also certainly experiencing, their public transportation is not only as efficient as it’s always been, but – it keeps getting better and better.  Unlike […]
STREETSBLOG SF

Transit: The Greenest Technology

|
Editor’s note: This concludes our 5-part series of excerpts from Peter Calthorpe’s book, “Urbanism in the Age of Climate Change.” Thanks to Island Press, a few lucky Streetsblog readers will be selected to receive a free copy of the book. To enter the contest, fill out this form. We’ll choose the winners tomorrow. The most […]