| "Read
(This Study) and I Think You'll See Why Even Conservative State
Governors Want More and Better Public Transit, Not Less."
The Honorable Tommy G. Thompson
Governor, State of Wisconsin
Dedication
To Richard
Kunz, editor of The New Electric Railway Journal.
Through the darkest
days of abandonments and "bustitution," he never lost
faith in the future of rail transit.
1937
- 1998
RIP
This
study of public transportation by the Free Congress Research and
Education Foundation was underwritten by the private sector Business
Members of the American Public Transit Association. The views
expressed are those of the authors.
Washington,
DC
May 1999
FOREWORD
by The
Honorable Tommy G. Thompson
Governor,
State of Wisconsin
One of the challenges
that comes with being a governor is that you have to make things
work. The decision you make today is likely to have real world
consequences starting tomorrow. I like to think that makes governors
more practical and less ideological. As a fellow governor, Lamar
Alexander, likes to say, "How do liberal dog catchers and
conservative dog catchers catch dogs? The same way."
I found
it refreshing when two solid conservatives, Paul Weyrich and Bill
Lind, decided to take a fresh look at mass transit. Their previous
study, Conservatives and Mass Transit: Is It Time for a New
Look?, proved to be the hit of the transit world when it was
released a couple of years ago. And with good reason – it
said something new. It said that there are sound, conservative
reasons to support public transit, when public transit is done
right.
As a
governor, I know that mass transit is important for a variety
of reasons to many people in my state. And I know that rail transit,
including intercity rail, could and should play a much larger
role than it currently does in serving the people of Wisconsin
and the entire nation. That is why, when I was offered a position
on the Amtrak board of directors, I took it.
As a
conservative, I am sometimes troubled by the studies released
by some conservative think tanks that attack public transit. Why
do academic conservatives seem to believe that all transit is
bad, when as a real world conservative, I know it isn’t?
In this
new study, Does Transit Work? A Conservative Reappraisal,
Weyrich and Lind answer that question. They do so by pointing
out something I had sensed but never quite put my finger on: the
anti-transit conservative studies ask the wrong question.
They base their anti-transit conclusions on the question: what
percentage of total trips does transit carry? That number is relatively
small. But it is an academic, not a real world number.
In the
real world, roughly half of all Americans have any transit available
to them and a still smaller number have the high quality transit
available that would be utilized versus an automobile. If we look
at how transit competes among that group of people, it performs
vastly better than the anti-transit studies suggest. As governor
of Wisconsin, that reflects transit reality in my state.
Like
many officials at the state level, I encourage those in Washington
and in various think tanks around the country to go into the field
and witness for themselves just how viable rail transit can be
and how important it is to working people. The American people
need a dependable and affordable means to get to work and back
each day. Think about it – the average price of a new car
is now over $20,000. Good public transit can help working families
keep a portion of that money in the bank instead of spending it
at the gas pump. To them, and us, that’s important.
So is this study. Read
it, and I think you’ll see why even conservative state governors
want more and better public transit, not less.
Executive
Summary
One
of the principal arguments against mass transit is the "one
percent argument" -- the assertion that transit carries only
about one percent of total trips. This argument is relied upon
heavily by many conservative and libertarian critics of public
transit. In fact, the real figure appears to be somewhat higher.
But
this paper argues that the central problem is not the answer but
the question. Total trips is a poor yardstick with which to measure
the effectiveness of public transit. Instead, the authors propose
a new measurement: transit competitive trips. If we ask what percentage
transit carries of the trips for which it can compete, we get
a very different picture, one that accords much more closely with
the real importance of mass transit in urban areas.
The
study goes on to apply this new measurement to three transit systems,
each of which represents high quality transit: Chicago's Metra
commuter rail system and the Light Rail systems in San Diego and
St. Louis. In each case, the system does far better than the transit
critics suggest. Taken together, the three case studies establish
beyond question that when we measure transit with the correct
yardstick, transit competitive trips, transit works.
Like
the authors' previous study, Conservatives and Mass Transit:
Is It Time for a New Look?, this study then goes on to suggest
ways in which transit can compete more effectively. If transit
authorities are willing to act imaginatively to improve transit
quality, America could see another "transit era," a
second coming of public transit.
Does
Transit Work? A Conservative Reappraisal
A Study
Prepared by the Free Congress Research and Education Foundation
The
first recorded example of mass transportation was the movement
of Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden. At that time 100% of
the human population was moved at once in a single trip, a record
never equaled since. 1
In fact,
according to most conservative studies of mass transit, it has
gone straight down hill. Today, they argue, despite billions of
dollars of investment, transit carries a pathetically small number
of riders: about one percent of total trips. Does transit work?
If that is all the people it carries, the answer would appear
to be clear: no.
In our
earlier study, Conservatives and Mass Transit: Is It Time for
a New Look?, we surveyed three common conservative objections
to public transportation: it is a government creation that would
quickly disappear in a free market; no conservative constituencies
actually ride transit; and transit does not serve any important
conservative goals. We noted that each of these perceptions is
true in some situations. But there are other situations in which
each is not true.
In fact,
the dominance of automobiles and highways is a product of massive
government intervention in the marketplace, intervention stretching
back to World War I. In countries such as Switzerland where government
policy has been less one-sided, transit holds a far larger market
share.
While
few people who can get around any other way will take a bus on
a traffic-clogged street, many are willing to take a train. High
quality rail systems such as Chicago’s Metra carry large
numbers of middle and upper-income commuters, people whose demographics
indicate they vote conservative. Conservative politicians who
disdain any mass transit are neglecting part of their base.
And
transit demonstrably does serve some important conservative goals,
including economic development, which can be both spurred and
shaped by rail transit systems; helping the poor move off welfare
and into jobs (which they have to get to somehow); and strengthening
the bonds of community, which is important to cultural conservatives.
Does
Transit Work?
Well
and good, some conservatives (and other transit skeptics) have
replied. But in the end, the most important conservative question
about anything is, does it work? Welfare did not work, and the
country is finally moving to get rid of it (we happily join in
the cheers for that!). The National Endowment for the Arts does
not work (sorry, but poop is poop, not art), and with any luck
we will be rid of it soon too. Why should we keep transit around,
when it only carries one percent of total trips? That number seems
to make it clear: transit just doesn’t work!
The
"one percent argument" isn’t the only conservative
argument against transit. For example, some conservative studies
claim that new Light Rail systems all carry fewer riders than
projected and cost much more than planned. In response, it is
easy enough to point out a contrary fact: two of the country’s
newest Light Rail lines, those in St. Louis and Dallas, both came
in on budget and carry more riders than projected.
But
the one percent argument is tougher. And, with variations, it
turns up in most critiques of mass transit.
A publication
of the Road Information Program, A Mobility Comparison of Investments
in Highways and Mass Transit, notes that
Despite
a 148.8 percent increase in operating subsidies between 1980 and
1990, mass transit was unable to increase its share of the nation’s
PMT. In fact, between 1980 and 1990, mass transit’s share
of the nation’s passenger miles of non-marine, surface transportation
decreased from 1.43 percent to 1.27 percent…total PMT provided
by mass transit exceeded 1 percent of total transportation in
only 10 states in 1990.2
A regional
conservative periodical, K.C. Jones Monthly, based in Kansas,
argued in a skeptical article, "Public Transit: A Worthwhile
Investment?," that
Public
transit is clearly a declining industry. Ridership peaked during
the World War II period at roughly 23 billion trips per year….
As World War II came to an end and life returned to a more normal
mode, public transit lost most of its market advantages. Ridership
declined by about two-thirds, from 23 billion annual trips to
around 8 billion in recent years. Public transit’s share
of urban passenger miles fell from over 30% in 1945 to barely
2% in 1995.3
The
libertarian Reason Foundation’s paper, Myths and Facts
of Nation’s Transit Policy, states that "Early results
from the 1990 NPTS (Nationwide Personal Transportation Study)
show that public transit accounted for 2.5% of all person-trips
in 1990 vs. 2.3% in 1983." The figures are for total trips
nationwide, not just in metropolitan areas.4 A 2.2%
figure for total trips (in 1980) is given in False Dreams and
Broken Promises: The Wasteful Federal Investment in Urban Mass
Transit, published by another libertarian think-tank, the
CATO Institute.5
The
numbers rise, but only slightly, when the same studies look at
commuting to work on transit in urban areas. The CATO study says
"just over 5 percent of work trips were provided by transit,"6
the Reason Foundation says 5.86%,7 and an article in
The Wall Street Journal, "Despite Huge Outlays, Transit
Systems Fail to Lure Back Riders," gives a figure of 5.3%
in 1990, down from 6.4% in 1980. 8
Are
the numbers in these anti-transit studies correct? With minor
variations, yes. An official U.S. Department of Transportation
study, Journey-To-Work Trends in the United States and its
Major Metropolitan Areas 1960-1990, says that in 1990 5.12%
of commuters used public transit, down from 6.22% in 1980. 9
Another USDOT study, New Perspectives in Commuting, states
that from 1980 to 1990 "the transit share declined from about
6.4% percent to about 5.3% of work travel."10
The Federal Highway Administration’s National Personal
Transportation Survey, Summary of Travel Trends, dated March,
1992, shows the distribution of work trips for transit as 8.4%
in 1969, 4.7% in 1977, 5.8% in 1983, and 5.5% in 1990. The increase
from 1977 to 1990 is one of the few shown in any study of transit
use. 11
The
Eno Transportation Foundation’s highly detailed study, Commuting
in America II, shows a more interesting variation: while stating
that "transit’s share of commuters declined from 6.3%
to 5.1%" from 1980 to 1990, it also notes that "although
bus service, the major mode used in transit, lost riders, other
transit modes, specifically subways and commuter railroads, gained
riders." The Eno study shows a gain in subway and elevated
rail of 14.86% and in commuter rail of 3.61% over the decade.12
As we will see below, the distinction between the performance
of bus and rail is important.
And
what of the magical one percent, the figure so often cited for
transit’s share of total trips? The actual number seems closer
to 2%, but that’s still beggarly enough. If transit only
carries 2% of total trips, or around 5% of commuters in urban
areas, how can continued funding for transit be justified? Aren’t
the critics right? Don’t the numbers tell us – and we
know numbers cannot mislead – that we should just park the
buses, scrap the trains and be done with it?
Reality
vs. Theory
Well,
perhaps not. The rest of this paper will show why these numbers
can mislead. But some philosophy may be helpful at the outset.
An old
trait of conservatives is their insistence that reality is local
and concrete, not airy and abstract. One fine day in the 18th
century, that great Ur-conservative talker and man of letters,
Dr. Samuel Johnson, went for a walk with his long-time companion,
Mr. Boswell, around the Channel port of Harwich. Boswell, ever
the quiz, asked Dr. Johnson what he thought of the theories of
Bishop Berkeley, who opined that we cannot really know the existence
of anything. "I observed," wrote Boswell, "that
though we are satisfied his doctrine is not true, it is impossible
to refute it." "I refute it thus," Dr. Johnson
growled, kicking a large stone.13
The
stone we would kick is the hard fact that, if transit suddenly
ceased operating in any large American city, commuting would become
almost impossible. Rush-hour traffic is already horrendous, to
the point where in places like Los Angeles and Washington, drivers
are shooting each other. The rush hour itself has become rush
many-hours, even "permanent rush hour." In urban areas,
there isn’t any place to put more highways, never mind the
fact that bisecting, trisecting and dissecting cities with limited
access freeways makes them die. If all the people now on trains,
subways, Light Rail lines and buses suddenly joined the rush hour
drive (and most can: in 1990 only 11% of American households had
no vehicle, and 59% of those already lived in the center city),14
getting to work might take as much time as the job itself.15
So we
appear to have a contradiction. Common sense and experience, those
two great conservative tests, tell us transit is important. The
statistics that count total trips, even total urban commuting
trips, tell us it isn’t. What gives?
What
has to give is the unit of measurement. The seeming contradiction
stems from the fact that counting total trips (or total commuting
trips) does not effectively measure the present impact or potential
of public transit. The anti-transit studies are applying the wrong
yardstick. They are, in effect, trying to measure flour with a
ruler, or count inches with a spoon. Their numbers are correct,
but the meaning they draw from them isn’t. To measure transit’s
current worth or future potential, we need a different measurement.
What
might that measurement be?
Go to
Part 2 /
Go to Part 3
/ Go to Part
4 / Go to
Part 5
|
