PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION: ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL POLICY FACTORS

DARA ADIB

Metropolitan areas in the United States today typically have one or more transit authorities which operate urban and often suburban public transportation systems. Though there is usually a cost associated with riding a bus, train, subway, or ferry, these services are dependent on funding that comes from local, state, and national governments. These sources of funding are financed through tax revenue. Public transportation therefore becomes a political issue, with economic and social implications. During worse-off economic times, it is often cut back in an effort by governments to save money. The long-term effects of public transportation cuts can lead to social inequality and greater costs. Public transportation is a deteriorating component of public infrastructure, but if investments are made, those costs will pay for themselves in both the short-term and the long-term.

Public transportation in the New York metropolitan area

The New York metropolitan area, also referred to as Greater New York and the Tri-State Area, is the most populous metropolitan area in the United States, with a population of nearly 19 million people (US

Census Bureau). The Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) operates New York City Transit within the five boroughs, which includes both subway and bus (Carlson). In 2006, there were 190 million revenue passengers1, and the number of subway passengers increased by 3.31%, which was faster than population growth (MTA Budget Division). In contrast, only 25 million revenue passengers passed through MTA Bridges

& Tunnels with a car in the same year. 75% of Manhattan residents do not own a car, which explains the reliance on subway for transport (Bata).

MTA agencies also operate most of the public transportation infrastructure in the New York metropolitan area, with Metro-North West of Hudson trains co-operated by New Jersey Transit, another transit authority.

In total, 207 million revenue passengers passed through public transportation services operated by MTA agencies in 2006. 54% of those commuting to New York City used public transportation (US Census Bureau).

Four of the five boroughs of New York City are surrounded by suburbs; the fifth (Staten Island) is itself a suburb of Manhattan (Bata). In the Northeast (Westchester County), 6.4 million revenue passengers passed through the Metro-North Commuter Railroad in 2006 (MTA Budget Division). In the East (Nassau and

Date: May 3, 2011. 1A revenue passenger is defined as a passenger taking one trip through the service. 1 Suffolk Counties), 6.8 million revenue passengers passed through the Long Island Rail Road (LIRR). In the

South (Borough of Staten Island), approximately 20 million passengers passed through the Staten Island

Ferry, (some of these may have been tourists). LIRR, the only 24-hour commuter passenger railroad in the

US, services the most passengers of any commuter railroad in the US, followed by Metro-North (US Census).

Rockland County. To the Northwest, the two railroad lines co-operated by the Metro-North Commuter

Railroad and New Jersey Transit serviced less than 150,000 passengers in 2006 (MTA Budget Division).

These lines include the only passenger trains to Rockland County, a suburban area beginning 9.5 miles from

Manhattan with an approximate population of 300,000 (US Census Burea). Rockland County accounts for a minority of the traffic on these train lines, but even if it were assumed that Rockland County accounted for half of traffic, this equates to less than a quarter of a trip per resident per year, which suggest that commuters from Rockland County relied heavily on transport by car.

Westchester County. In contrast, Westchester County, across the Hudson River to the east, is only slightly closer to some boroughs (in fact, northern Westchester is farther), but its rail service is, as mentioned above, the second largest in the United States. Westchester County’s population is three times Rockland County’s, but its railroad services at least 90 times as many revenue passengers.

Rockland County

Rockland County is a suburban county in New York State 9.5-30 miles to the northwest of Manhattan, with a population of about 300,000. It is the smallest county in New York State outside of the City. Thirty percent of the county is city, county, or state parkland, and the population density (1,600 per square mile) is the lowest in the New York metropolitan area.

Minorities are predominately White European and Jewish, with 11% Black, 6% Asian, and 14% Hispanic

(of any race) (US Census Burea). Compared with the rest of the New York metropolitan area, the number of non-Whites is considerable smaller. Despite a per-capita income of $101,000, which is the highest in the

New York metropolitan area outside Manhattan, approximately 12% of the population is below the poverty line, which is the highest in the New York metropolitan area outside the four urban boroughs: Manhattan,

Bronx, Brooklyn, and Queens (Economic Research Service).

Two minority groups with generally lower-than-average incomes (Blacks and Hispanics) are fewer pro- portionally and there is the highest population of a minority with generally higher-than-average incomes

(Jewish-Americans) of any county in the United States, yet the proportion of the population below the poverty line is relatively high. This can only suggest high economic inequality, and by extension social inequality, in a county that is completely suburban and not very diverse. 2 In comparison, approximately 9% of the population in Westchester County is below the poverty line

(Economic Research Service). Westchester County is slightly lower in per-capita income, more dense, more urban, more diverse, and directly neighbors the county with the highest proportion of the population below the poverty line (Bronx County at 30%). It is otherwise comparable (ignoring access to public transportation) as a county in the New York metropolitan area bordering less than 10 miles north from Manhattan.

It comes as a logical thought that if Rockland County were to improve its public transportation infras- tructure, both within the county and for commuters to Manhattan and other boroughs of the City, would it be able to lower poverty, lower inequality, and improve its economy by opening access to urban areas and job opportunities?

Efforts to improve public transportation. In the late 1980s, the Department of Transportation in

Rockland County funded a number of studies by two consulting firms, Urbitran (Smith) and Wilbur Smith and Associates (Stalk). In 1987, Wilbur Smith and Associates prepared a report describing a transit re- development program for Transport of Rockland (TOR), a transit agency that operates within the county

(Stalk). In 1988, Urbitran prepared a report on the bus terminal at Nanuet Mall, which was at the time the largest shopping area in the county (Smith). Private but publicly subsidized buses, now operated by

Coach USA, pick up passengers from Nanuet Mall and are generally more affordable than train for travel to

Manhattan.

Wilbur Smith and Associates made a number of suggestions for the county policymakers. They suggested that TOR, the public transit agency, consider taking over private transportation agencies if those agencies

“wished to be relieved” (Stalk 1-S-2).

Wilbur Smith and Associates also made a number of findings. They determined that the level of cost- effective public transportation service depends on “demographic and land-use characteristics of the service area” (Stalk 1-2-1).

The size, location and concentration of trip generators and attractors such as employment

centers, commercial areas, residential developments, public service and recreational facilties

are the primary determinants of trips desired. The proportion of these trips made by transit

is dependent in part on population characteristics, including population density, age, income

level and automobile ownership.

As would be expected, Smith claimed that public transportation service is most cost-effective in areas of high population density (Stalk 1-2-1). In addition to the general concentration of people, the “general tendency of people living in these areas to have lower incomes and fewer automobiles” (Stalk 1-2-6) provided another 3 reason to provide public transportation service. Smith seperated the population into groups which included senior citizens, school-age children, and low-income persons, because these population groups would be less likely to own or operate cars and therefore generally more transit-dependent (Stalk 1-2-3).

Smith found also found that car ownership almost always corresponded to family income (Stalk 1-2-6).

This is hardly surpirsing, because in a suburban area like Rockland County with weak public transportation, car brings access and can only be seen as a benefit that those who can afford would operate. In an urban area like Manhattan, where 75% of the population does not own a car, the same is not necessarily true, because car ownership can often be seen as a downside: high parking costs and difficulty of parking mean hassle for the car owner. For policy implementation, Smith noted that “Intra-community, intra-county, and

New York City commuters represent seperate, partially overlapping markets which require different route and schedule adjustments in order to serve. . . public transportation services in Rockland County are strongly inter-related” (Stalk 1-2-14 - 1-2-16, 1-5-20).

Based on surveys of passengers throughout the county, Smith found that about half of passenger trips were work trips (Stalk 1-3-4). Urbitran, based on a survey of the largest bus terminal in the county, determined that over 50% of users were transit dependent (Smith 45). This suggests that public transportation may be necessary for affordable transport to work, and is a necessity for ensuring access to job opportunities.

Many of the busiest route segments for intra-county traffic were between areas of high population density, with generally higher rates of poverty, and centers for employment and public services, such as community colleges, hospitals, and other health centers (Stalk 1-3-7). This suggests that public transportation provides a cost-effective way for public services to expand their reach to larger areas rather than opening new centers, which much more dramatically raises costs and taxes, and similarly suggests help for those who are employed by public agencies.

The Private Industry Council suggested that the present limited level of County transit

service acts as a deterrent to economic development in two ways: discouraging some firms

from locating and building in the County, and limiting placement of trained employees

without automobiles with local firms. (Stalk 1-4-1- 1-4-2)

Smith’s findings on intra-county bus service coincided with Urbitran’s on the Nanuet Mall bus terminal.

Urbitran found that “the current bus facilities at the Nanuet Mall are perceived as being inadequate from an operator, user and administrative perspective” and recommended improvments to traffic and signage (Smith

1). Urbitran found however that many of these problems were simply caused by a lack of coordination between seperate public and private transit agencies, which led to confusion in traffic, passenger pickup, and hassle (Smith 14). 4 The Survey Team observed a general aura of confusion amongst bus riders throughout both

days of the Survey distribution. Bus stops were poorly identified. . . Enumerable riders asked

for scheduled and routing information we were not prepared to provide.. . . buses not showing

up on time or showing up at all. . . frequent dashing back and forth of riders. . . desperate

appeals for taxi information. . . It was later learned that a direct line to taxi service does

exist—but on the opposite side of the Mall. Bus riders frequently exchanged and relied

upon information volunteered by other riders awaiting a bus. (Smith 38)

Urbitran suggested that these conditions could be improved without significant cost by signage, maps, redesign of traffic flow, and visual cues, such as crosswalks and designated boarding areas (Smith 48).

The Red and Tan bus stop area, used for transit to Manhattan, was especially perceived as inconvenient from a passenger perspective due to poor lighting and the lack of an enclosed area for the bus stop (Smith

21).

January 15, 1986. The day was sunny but extremely cold and the wind chill factor made the

day even more uncomfortable. The survey team and bus users found it very uncomfortable

to remain outdoors for more than a few minutes at a time. Most bus users waited in the

two entrances to the Mall and then literally “dashed” as best they could to catch the desired

bus.. . . As a result [of not being able to identify the route number on a given bus] there

were numerous false starts and the result [sic] return to the shelter provided by the Mall

entrance. (Smith 35-36)

Another issue was lack of parking, with as many as 40 cars illegally parking in the lot on weekends after it was filled to capacity (Smith 27).

Smith suggested that some specific service lines be added, such as more connections between TOR and commuter bus and rail services, and service to major employment locations, and expand transit service to all areas in the county capable of sustaining a specific ridership level (Stalk 2-2-7). Part of a recommended five- year transit development program included piggybacking on other transit services, for example by providing trans-Hudson park-ride service to Tarrytown and White Plains, where riders could access Metro-North

Commuter Railroad for afforadable and fast access to the Bronx and Manhattan (Stalk 2-3-1). Perhaps most substantial was the recommendation that TOR take over the local services provided by the private bus company Red and Tan Lines (now owned and operated by the subsidiary Rockland Coaches of Coach USA), for better efficiency, administration, and to target areas which depended on bus service even if they were not the most lucrative sources of money (Stalk 2-3-3). In total, Smith’s suggestions would nearly double TOR 5 operations (Stalk 2-3-9). Smith also recommended aggressively marketing for greater awareness (Stalk 2-4-6

- 2-4-7).

Federal support for transit operating costs had already been reduced in earlier years (Stalk 2-3-5). In part as a result of budget cuts caused by funding gaps by state agencies in the early 1990s, many of the more long-term and significant recommendations, such as a park-ride service to Westchester County for access to

Metro-North Commuter Railroad, were not realized.

Part of the reason, as Smith noted, was the low revenue/cost ratio, which meant that TOR could only recover 27% of its costs through passenger revenues, because of low productivity and resource utilization

(Stalk 2-2-4 - 2-2-5). Another reason, as suggested by Urbitran, was that of the $550,000 (in 1988 dollars) cost to redevelop the Nanuet Mall bus terminal, including a bus shelder and covered pedestrian walkway

(Smith 70), almost all would be paid by the County of Rockland. Hopes for a cooperative venture between the public and private sectors, including private transit and the mall owner (Smith 73), never materialized, and coupled with cuts in public financing, led to the project being abandoned.

Sadly, while Wilbur Smith and Associates cites that 4.8% of the county’s population was below the poverty line in 1987 (Stalk 1-2-3 - 1-2-5), that figure has now more than doubled to 12% in the 2010 US Census.

Rockland County continues to offer subsidies to private bus operators in lieu of directly running them, and it can be assumed that these subsidies are still an important source of funding for transit infrastructure.

Necessity of public transportation. Urbitran and Smith both suggest that public transportation services are inconvenient for riders, and need to be drastically improved. The most major improvments, as a result of budget cuts, were never made, and the effects of cutting a form of public infrastructure can only continue to affect county residents and local governements.

Highway planning decisions have also resulted in making public transportation inconvenient for commuters in Rockland County. The Palisades Interstate Parkway, opened in 1958 as the preferred and shortest highway route to and from Manhattan, is covered with low overpasses that prevent bus and commercial traffic (Bata).

The planner, Robert Moses, who was responsible for most of the transportation infrastructure built in the

New York metropolitan area in the mid-20th century, favored highways over public transportation. As a result, the physical routes taken by buses to Manhattan are nearly twice as long as those taken by passenger vehicle. Competing with commercial traffic in heavy highway congestion, bus riders spend at least twice as much time commuting as car drivers. Commuting with public transportation is seen as something to avoid by those who can afford avoiding it.

Of special importance regarding public transportation are four findings made above. First, car ownership almost always corresponded to family income (Stalk 1-2-6). Second, over 50% of public transportation users 6 were transit dependent (Smith 45). Third, about half of passenger trips were work trips (Stalk 1-3-4). Fourth, many of the busiest route segments for intra-county traffic were between areas of high population density, with generally higher rates of poverty, and centers for employment and public services, such as community colleges, hospitals, and other health centers (Stalk 1-3-7).

These findings suggest that those with lower-incomes are those most dependent on public transportation, that they need public transportation to get to work, and that they also need public transportation to access public instutions which offer education and health offerings. In an area where public transportation is inconvenient, it is obvious that those who would use it only use it out of necessity, as a last resort, and therefore do not have access to alternatives.

When governements cut public transportation during worse economic times, they are increasing the burden on the population groups that are already most-affected. From an economic standpoint, each dollar that was spent in public transportation recovers itself many times over by reducing unemployment and reducing the number of public service centers for health and education that need to be built, since they can be built at further distances and still remain accessible.

Economic effects

One economic effect of public transportation, mentioned earlier, is the access to job opportunities and public services, which decrease unemployment, raise tax revenue, and decrease the cost of constructing and maintaining more public centers for education and health services. Public transport also effects the economy by reducing the cost of travel, reducing congestion (which makes wages more efficient), and increasing the labor market accessible to a given business. Per billion dollars of sustained annual investment, these changes can in the long-term add $1.7 billion to the gross domestic product.

Public transportation also has economic effects by itself employing and contracting a workforce to build, maintain, and service its infrastructure.

Public transportation employs workers who receive wages that they spend on taxes and products and services that other businesses receive as income. Per year, per billion dollars of spending on public trans- portation, 24,000 jobs can be supported by capital investment (Weisbrod i). Capital investment includes the costs associated with building a transportation infrastructure, including the purchase of vehicles, equipment, and the construction of buildings. Per year, per billion dollars of spending on public transportation, 41,000 jobs can be supported by public transportation operations (Weisbrod ii). Public transportation operations 7 includes the costs associated with maintaining and servicing a transportation infrastructure, including em-

ploying managers, operators, and maintainers. Combining the effects proportionate to real-world data, this

means on average 36,000 jobs are supported per year, per billion dollars of spending on public transportation.

In comparitive terms, public transportation is one of the most efficient investments in the economy that

can be made in a metropolitan area.

Another comparison of interest is contained in a study by economists at the University of

Massachusetts-Amherst [who]. . . found that “each billion dollars of tax revenue allocated to

tax cuts for personal consumption generates approximately 10,800 jobs” while “investing the

same amount in the military creates 8,500 jobs. . . in health care yields 12,900 jobs; in educa-

tion, 17,700 jobs; in mass transit, 19,800 jobs2; and in construction for home weatherization

and infrastructure, 12,800 jobs.” (Weisbrod 32)

National investment can be analyzed by its short-term effects. For every billion dollars of federal funding, on average, the gross domestic product is increased by $1.8 billion and $490 million is returned through tax revenue (Weisbrod ii). This accounts for “indirect and induced effects” which includes impacts on additional industries so far as those impacts create new jobs rather than displace other jobs. Combined with long-term effects mentioned earlier, a sustained annual federal spending of $1 billion on public transportation can lead to a $3.5 billion increase in the gross domestic product.

Socioeconomic effects. In today’s world, social status is largely dependent on income, therefore access to job opportunities is the most effective way to create social mobility. Public transportation allows access to job opportunities, preventing unemployment and poverty. Public transportation also increases the chance that job opportunities will turn into jobs, because it allows access to social, education, and health services through which individuals can gain credibility for a job.

Public transportation also decreases the cost of travel. By not driving a car, a commuter or other individual can save $905 a year. For the lowest fifth of households, who earn less than $10,500 year, this can equate to a nearly 10% increase in household income.

For those at the lower range of incomes, this is a very substantial income benefit, providing

an enormous gain in their desperately neeeded purchasing power. (Weisbrod 54)

Cost of cars. It is worth noting that these savings only represent a fraction of the total savings by an individual community. Most of the savings of public transportation affects not the user but other taxpayers,

2These numbers only account for direct and supplier jobs, not induced effects such as wage spending. Therefore they are uniformly lower. 8 who no longer have to pay for costs associated with maintaining a car driver, such as congestion, pollution, road maintenance, and traffic enforcement.

Most of the actual cost of transportation is never noticed by drivers, because it is part of their taxes.

Drivers are not charged directly for the costs of driving, which includes capital, operation, maintenance, zoning, and negative social and environmental consequences (MacKenzie). When only direct costs and taxes are combined, American car drivers spend on average $7,000 per year to support a single car (Nelessen 6).

User fees like gas taxes and tools only covered 60% of the $33 billion (in 1989 dollars) road construction and maintenance costs in 1989 (MacKenzie 9). Police/traffic patrols and free parking had even greater costs in the same year: $68 billion and $85 billion in 1989 dollars, respectively (MacKenzie 10). Pollution (both chemically and audibly) and accidents are other less-measureable costs that are often ignored (MacKenzie

13-17).

Perceptions

Ideas for public transportation can generally be split by two complementary, but distinct views. The first is that public transportation is part of (sub)urban infrastructure and an economic investment. There are short-term and long-term benefits of spending money on and running transit agencies. The second is that public transportation is a social investment. By this view, public transportation is essential because it is the only form of transportation for those who do not have cars, and generally this refers to those who cannot afford cars.

In the New York metropolitan area, both views are applicable. In a densely-populated area like Man- hattan, public transportation is an essential part of city planning not primarily because of access to those with lower-incomes, but because it allows the city to compact itself. 75% of the city’s residents do not have cars. Most of those without cars can likely afford cars, but they choose not to because they perceive hassle.

Private transport is slower, less convenient, and more risky, so it is avoided. Because of suburban sprawl in Rockland County, those who can afford cars have cars, use cars, and depend on cars. Smith’s report targetted public transportation towards senior citizens, school-age children, and low-income persons, who chose public transportation because they had no choice (Stalk 1-2-3).

In both views, public transportation is a vital part of the area’s well-being. Wall Street depends on high population density which in turn depends on a good public transportation system. Many other cities of comparable density but smaller public transportation systems, especially those abroad, have serious issues with traffic congestion that Manhattan manages to avoid. The City government is similar to a business, and public transportation funds that business, through both capital investment and operations. The Department 9 of Design and Construction, Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Port Authority of New York and New

Jersey, and Department of Transportation employ a la workforce, both directly and indirectly through contracts and suppliers.

Similarly, Rockland County residents depend on an effective public transportation system. While it is not immediately perceived as a significant sector of the economy, it is significant as a public service, similar to education and health services. The 12% of the population within incomes below the poverty line cannot afford cars, but they still need a source of income. By allowing access to job opportunities and the means by which those jobs may be taken, a large segment of the population can receive a public service that would otherwise place an even higher burden on other tax payers. The elderly and school-age children, who have no access private transportation, now receive access to a lesser, more inconvenient alternative.

While urban areas strive to make public transportation competive with and more convenient than other forms of transportation, suburban areas often strive to simply provide a public transportation system that the governement can afford. These major differences necessitate different policy approaches.

Implementations. Roth and Wynne claim that United States can learn from developing countries, and focus on more efficient transit owned by private agencies.

Seriously inflated labor costs, mounting deficits, equipment breakdowns and lagging ridership

afflict a vast majority.. . . there is an alternative if we will shift our attention to some of the

less developed nations of the world. In Africa, in Asia, in parts of latin America, one

finds flourishing, privately-owned, profitable modes of public transportation that are able to

provide city residents with relatively fast, frequent and convenient service—and all that at

highly affordable prices.. . . the alternative systems are a success story by all service critera.

Morever they provide substantial employment. (Roth v)

The secret, of course is the entreperneurial spirit. There is abundant evidence that a

small, privately-run enterprise is inherently more inefficient than a large monopoly sustained

in large part by the taxpayer. Owner-operators work harder, handle more jobs and have less

overhead than public enterprises protected by subsidies. (Roth vi)

The idea is fascinating as much as it is flawed.

These small enterprises abroad often unregulated, unlicensed and therefore illegal. They are high risk investments, which are short-lived but quickly replaced. They take risks by hiring workers including low- income, inexperienced drivers. Competing for time, they race each other, make stops in illegal areas, and 10 make bad driving decisions (Roth 29). They are often unreliable and provide inconsistent levels of service.

In the United States this level of service would be seen as unprofessional at best, if not a risk to life.

In an area like Manhattan, small enterprise transportation is avoided because of high regulation and higher-priced fares. New York City already has a publicly-owned bus and subway system, which is made affordable by economy of scale. The famous yellow medallion taxicabs are highly-regulated private companies, and though they would “price-fix” as Roth and Wynne claim, this standardizes fares and prevents the user from being overcharged. In contrast, the black cabs, which are not regulated, not equipped with meters, almost always charge higher fares and for this reason are usually avoided if possible, but there are areas in the five boroughs where medallion taxicabs do not patrol frequently.

In an area like Rockland County, a capitalisitic approach is nearly impossibly to work out because most routes are unprofitable. The targets of public transportation—those with low-incomes, the elderly, and school-age children—are very unprofitable customers for private transportation. Coach USA, which oper- ates the commuter buses to Manhattan, depends on government subsidies. Roth and Wynne recommend subsidizing weak routes, but that would mean subsidizing every route and would only provide downsides.

Sprawl or: How I Learned to Move Out and Love the Car. The New York metropolitan area is unfortunately an exception rather than the norm, with public transportation having corroded in most cities in the United States. Rockland County has a decent public transportation system if compared with suburbia nationwide, but its transit sytem is seen as sub-par because of its proximity to one of the best public transportation systems in the United States. Rockland County is only a reflection of public transportation as a whole in the United States.

There is a perception that Americans have an unhealthy “love affair with the automobile” (Roth 39).

Nelessen and Howe claim that this may have been true before, but the obsession with a car now only comes as a necessity (7). Traffic congestion, which didn’t exist when cars became an icon, causes stress, and visual surveys indicated that most people preferred to avoid “the visual elements of an automobile dominated culture” (Nelessen 7-8). Arguably this obsession is not with the car itself, but rather an effect of urban sprawl, which is itself an effect of suburbanization beginning after World War II. Robert Moses’s decision to build low overpasses, that now prevent any form of public transportation from passing over the shortest route, was only part of a larger movement behind suburbanization.

Since World War II, Americans have preferred to move from high density area like cities to lower density areas like the surround suburbs. The move from the Northeast to the Sunbelt is a logical extension of this preference, because while Northeast cities like Boston, New York, Philadelphia, and Washington are very concentrated, Los Angeles for example is much more spread out. Less-dense areas cannot be efficiently served 11 by fixed-route bus, subway, and train lines since travel times would be long and the car alternative would be more appealing.

Urban sprawl leads to car-dependent communities, job sprawl, and spacial mismatch. Those who are within cities not only experience divestment, but may find their jobs moved to the suburbs. This further encourages residents to move out, and leaves those with the lowest-incomes and least access in the cities, decreasing tax revenue and resulting in deteriorating public services. These factors signify failures of public transportation. The solution is either to mitigate sprawl or adapt public transportation.

Land use changes. Smart growth and compact city practices seek to make urban areas more compact through urban consolidation policies. More dense areas are more cost-effective for public transportation, and because of space issues the alternatives are often less convenient. In 1973, Oregon set limits on the space urban areas could occupy, and Portland responded by growing inward rather than outward. Many of the Bay Area cities also developed urban growth boundaries, as advocated by the Greenbelt Alliance.

Flexible public transportation.

Although land use change may be necessary in the long term, land use change cannot solve

the current suburban transportation dilemma. Not only does the land use approach call for

accepting the somewhat uncomfortable assumption that customers (people) should adapt

their lives to the needs of the transit agency (rather than vice versa), it fails to deal with

the vay metropolitan America currently is and for all practical purposes will be well into

the future. (Nelessen 11)

In addition to compact city practices, an effort can be made to adapt public transportation.

Roth and Wynne claim that the issue with public transportation in low-density areas is its long travel time compared to car, not cost (39-41). Technological improvements may be able to help public transportation compete. Seattle’s Monorail, the fastest full-sized monorail in the country, has a top speed of 45 mph, and is therefore faster than most alternative, especially if traffic congestion is accounted for.

Nelessen and Howe noted that most previous technologically-motivated ideas failed because they did not account for sprawl.

Most people can tell you what’s wrong with transit in the suburbs today. It just doesn’t

work. It doesn’t go where they need to go. It doesn’t go when they need to go. Or, if there

is service for some trips, it is hard to find out about, it takes too long, it is inconvenient, and

it is difficult to access. It may also be uncomfortable, ugly, and feel unsafe.. . . Taking transit 12 in the suburbs, no matter how low the fare, often feels like a very high risk operation—climb

on and see where the bus goes or whether the train stops. (Nelessen 3, 7)

Buses are no longer tied to rail or electrical infrastructure, but the fixed route model has still been kept. This model does not work, however, because “most metropolitan areas have distances that are too long, origins and destinations too dispersed, population densities generally too low, and a mix of land uses to seperated to design a fixed route. . . ” (Nelessen 4).

Nelessen and Howe claim that technology has advanced far enough that it is possible to create flexible neighborhood transportation by combining a bus and a taxi to create a small bus that can be called at any point and routed by a computer system which dynamically routes the bus (11). The system would be able to schedule and dispatch trips in real-time, accounting for both long-term reservations and last minute changes, and automate data collection, billing, and reporting (Nelessen 12). They detail the specifics, including possible algorithms for route calculations (Nelessen 26).

Conclusions

Public transportation is an essential part of the infrastructure in metropolitan areas, from the densest areas of dowtown Manhattan to the outskirts of Rockland County. In more dense areas, it can be be preferred over cars for speed and ease, and in these areas it allows the population to cost-effectively occupy dense areas. In less dense areas, it can offer the only form of transportation for low-income residents, school-age children, and the elderly. In many places it can act as a socieconomic equalizing factor. Public transportation is an investment in infrastructure that can offer the highest returns on jobs: directly through capital and operational expenditures, indirectly through suppliers and contracts, and inducively through increased access to job opportunities and the means with which to obtain jobs. Urban sprawl has caused public transportation to deteriorate, but measures to both contain sprawl and adapt public transportation are possible.

13 Works Cited

Bata, Andrew, and Shoshana Cooper. “New York City’s socioeconomic characteristics, land use and travel pat- terns.” Urban public transportation systems: implementing efficient urban transit systems and enhancing transit usage. Reston, VA: American Society of Civil Engineers, 2000. 368-380. Print.

Carlson, Susan A. “Urban public transportation system of New York City and its operation and use by peo- ple.” Urban public transportation systems: implementing efficient urban transit systems and enhancing transit usage.

Reston, VA: American Society of Civil Engineers, 2000. 381-390. Print.

Economic Research Service. 2009 County-Level Poverty Rates for New York. US Department of Agriculture,

2009. Web.

MTA Budget Division. Report on Revenue Passengers and Vehicles Ridership Data Thru November, 2006 . New

York: Metropolitan Transportation Authority, 2007. Print.

MacKenzie, James J., Roger C. Dower, and Donald D. T. Chen. The going rate: what it really costs to drive.

Washington: World Resources Institute, 1992. Web.

Nelessen, Anton, and Linda K. Howe. Flexible, Friendly Neighborhood Transit: A Solution for the Suburban

Transportation Dilemma. Piscataway, NJ: Center for Urban Policy Research, Rutgers, State University of New

Jersey, 1995. Print.

Roth, Gabriel, and George G. Wynne. Free Enterprise: Urban Transportation. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction

Books, 1982. Print.

Smith, Wilbur, Herbert S. Levinson, and J/M Stalk. Nanuet Mall bus terminal study of Rockland County, New

York. New York: Urbitran, 1988. Print.

Stalk, J/M, I. K. Chann, and Herbert S. Levinson. A Transit Development Program for Rockland County, New

York. New Haven, CT: Wilbur Smith & Associates, 1987. Print.

US Census Bureau. Population Change for the Ten Most Populous and Fastest Growing Metropolitan Statistical

Areas: 2000 to 2010 . US Census Bureau, 2011. Web.

Weisbrod, Glen, and Arlee Reno. Economic impact of public transportation investment. Boston: Transit Cooper- ative Research Program, American Public Transportation Association, 2009. Web.

Bibliography3

Boer, Enne de. Transport sociology: social aspects of transport planning. Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1986. Print.

Forkenbrock, David J., and Lisa A. Schweitzer. Environmental Justice and Transportation Investment Policy.

Iowa City: Public Policy Center, University of Iowa, 1997. Print.

Gärling, Tommy, and Linda Steg. Threats from car traffic to the quality of urban life: problems, causes, and solutions. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2007. Print.

3Uncited works that were used as reference. 14