I’m quite literally dropping a very short policy paper on the balance between individual transportation and mass transit alternatives.

Introduction

Urban transportation involves highly complex and interrelated systems which people use as a means to accomplish a variety of ends. Transportation in urban areas can take the form of pedestrian traffic, bicycling, private automobiles, buses, and railways. Each of these forms has its functional purpose as well as limitations. This paper will focus primarily upon the use of private automobiles and mass transit systems (buses and railways) in urban areas as well as their benefits, problems, and potential solutions to those problems.

The Private Automobile

In the United States the primary mode of transportation is the use of private automobiles. In lower density settings this makes perfect sense as automobiles quickly and comfortably can get travelers to their destinations with a minimum of interruption. In higher density areas, however, high automobile usage creates congestion which slows down movement, contributes to accidents and injury, and makes the movement of people and goods increasingly inefficient with each additional user.

Automobile use began in the early 20^th Century and has increased greatly over time such that it is currently the dominant mode of transportation in much of the United States. The use of automobiles was spurred in part by relatively sparse settlement patterns as well as by design in the creation of the Interstate Highway System. For much of recent American history there has been an overriding preoccupation with automobile transportation and the ways to make it more efficient. Unfortunately, most highway planners seem to “have become so preoccupiedwith the production of efficiency in automobile movement that they have builtchoice right out of the environment” (Cervero & Gorham, p. 1). Essentially, this preoccupation with the efficient movement of automobiles has adversely affected opportunities for finding creative solutions to our transit problems and planners have focused primarily upon ways to build more highway capacity.

Increased highway capacity has had numerous deleterious consequences on urban environments. It has led to an increase in suburban sprawl as the ability to drive into the city from further away at faster speeds is coupled with poor land use regulations and with people’s desire for more space in which to live. Additionally, it fails to alleviate congestion as people choose to make more nonessential trips when their travel time between destinations is decreased. Furthermore, this increased capacity coupled with higher use exacerbates congestion as there are now more miles of highway backed up which in turn leads to increased pollution in the form of vehicle emissions.

Mass Transit Systems

The primary alternative to the private automobile is found in mass transportation systems which generally take the form of railways and buses. Mass transit systems have the capacity to transport large numbers of people from one point to another. They also offers increased mobility options to those who do not own automobiles either because of economic circumstances, age, or infirmity. Additionally, mass transit service is available equally to all users while automobiles are available only to those who own them or otherwise have access to them.

Depending on the form mass transit takes, it can be somewhat slower or much faster than transportation by automobile. For instance, buses operating at grade are subject to the same traffic as autos and have to make regular stops to drop off and pick up passengers, making them considerably slower than auto transportation. At the other extreme are bullet trains operating above or below grade which can be several times faster than driving during hours of high congestion. In between are at grade light rail and heavy rail systems operating on separate grades which can be slower or faster than auto transportation depending largely on the time of day, grade at which the track is laid, and number of stops.

Mass transit systems, because of their ability to pick up and drop off large numbers of people in a small geographic area, have positive external effects on their surroundings. Cervero (1995), for instance, notes that office vacancy rates are lower and rents higher in areas where mass transit authorities have formed joint-development projects with private developers to ensure higher-density development near train stations. Mass transit systems also tend to have a positive impact on property values in the vicinity of stops as people are willing to pay more money for easy access to alternative modes of transportation.

In spite of their virtues, mass transit systems are incredibly expensive to construct and operate. Jose Gomez-Ibanez (1996) notes that in general, mass transit systems are subject to decreasing economic viability as more people push out to ever distant suburbs and turn to automobiles for their transportation needs. Some of the economic problems faced by mass transit are inherent in the system—waves for drivers and capital costs—while others are largely external to the system—stability of the local job market, increases in personal income, changing residential patterns. Whatever the case, mass transit systems by and large face ever-widening operational deficits as operators keep fares artificially low to maintain ridership.

The Way Forward

Automobiles appear to be self-sustaining, with the costs borne by their users. Mass transit, on the other hand, appears to be economically unsustainable with municipalities subsidizing users. Reality, however, is a bit more complicated. Kim (2004) details the phenomenon of cross-subsidization in which countries subsidize a particular mode of transportation through policy choices. Cross-subsidization is characterized by charging users a price below the true cost of their activities and supplying the funds from a general revenue source. In many European countries, gasoline is priced to more accurately reflect the costs of automobile usage such as congestion, pollution, and adverse health effects. In the United States, on the other hand, gasoline is priced well below its true value with gasoline taxes failing to even pay for the highways upon which automobiles operate. So while it is true that mass transit systems are often subsidized by taxpayers, so too is the use of private autos.

Having briefly surveyed the benefits and costs of the two dominant modes of transportation in the United States, the task at hand is to create proposals that will play to the strengths of both private autos and mass transit systems in such a way as to make both more revenue neutral as well as improve their performance to reduce congestion and make transportation more efficient. There are any number of changes that could be made in an attempt to improve the experience of users of both autos and mass transit, however, there are three which seem to provide the most promise for clearly visible results. These three changes are: altering the way neighborhoods are designed, bringing the cost of automobile use more in line with its actual cost, and differential grading for mass transit systems.

Cervero and Gorham (1995) conducted a study of the differences in travel patterns of residents of economically similar and geographically close neighborhoods. They differentiated between older neighborhoods designed on grid patterns, most often near former streetcar lines, and newer neighborhoods designed for autos featuring more impediments to rapid movement. Their study revealed that neighborhood design influences whether people ride share, walk, or bike to their destination, as well as whether they utilize mass transit. Residents of neighborhoods designed along grid patterns were more likely to walk, use bicycles, use public transportation, and carpool to work than those of more auto-oriented neighborhoods. This suggests that a return to grid layouts for newer neighborhoods could help cut down on traffic congestion, reduce emissions, and encourage alternative transportation modes without depriving people of the choice of whether to use an automobile to reach their destination.

Because the United States subsidizes the use and ownership of autos, a second proposal would be to bring the costs of driving more in line with the actual cost of use. These costs can be internalized by users in any number of ways. One such way is to increase the fuel tax to better reflect the generalized cost of highway construction and public health dangers presented by auto emissions. A second way to make users internalize these costs would be to use dynamic tolling or congestion pricing in heavily-trafficked urban areas where costs to public health and infrastructure are most heavily concentrated. Either or both of these proposals would very quickly bring the cost of auto usage more in line with their costs to society in general. Once these costs are internalized, it is also likely that mass transit systems will become more attractive and the fares for such systems would be able to increase without having as dramatic an impact on ridership as would be seen under present conditions. Such a system would, however, be politically unpopular and would require very careful negotiation and compromise to implement.

The final proposal is to provide for differential grading for mass-transit systems. Cervero (1994) states that there are three categories of grading: rows C, B, and A. Row Category C grading is use of public streets open to general traffic. Row Category B grading is the partial separation of mass transit systems from general traffic by providing a separate right of way while still being subject to cross traffic. Row Category A grading is a completely separate right of way for mass transit such as elevated tracks or subterranean tunnels. Shifting from a more general grade (C) to a more separate grade (B or A) would increase capacity, speed, reliability, and safety (Cervero 1994, p. 4-5). A shift to more specialized rights of way, while requiring an initial capital investment, would have the virtue of improving mass transit while simultaneously improving the experience of auto users by taking the transit system off of general thoroughfares and lessening the disruption to traffic flows.

Conclusion

Both automobiles and mass transit systems provide users with a means to accomplish other goals while simultaneously imposing costs on society at large. While there is no perfect solution to our transportation problems, our current system is seriously out of balance and would benefit from changes. Some of the changes are relatively modest such as providing separate grading for mass transit, while others are more ambitious such as dynamic tolling and redesigning neighborhood layouts. While all of the suggestions detailed above would individually benefit users of all modes of transportation, their benefits would be most apparent and widespread if used in conjunction.

I looked up the numbers of drivers arrested for DUI in Cook, DuPage, and Kane Counties. These three counties’ DUI arrests combined amounted to 43% of the state’s DUI arrests between 2004 and 2006. (I do realize that these particular counties have large populations compared to the rest of the state and have not run numbers on DUI arrests compared to population yet.)

Here are the numbers from the 2008 Illinois DUI Fact Book (interesting read, by the way)

Drivers Arrested in Illinois for DUI

Cook County: 15,219 (2004) — 15,258 (2005) — 14,144 (2006)

DuPage County: 5,254 (2004) — 5,166 (2005) — 5,285 (2006)

Kane County: 1,240 (2004) — 1,497 (2005) — 1,702 (2006)

Cook, DuPage, & Kane: 21,713 (2004) – 21,921 (2005) – 21,131 (2006)

% of DUI of state totals: 43% 44% 42%

State-wide: 50,147 (2004) — 50,192 (2005) — 50,109 (2006)

I think the high prevalence of drunk driving in the Chicago suburbs is a by-product of not having reliable or accessible public transportation. (Sure, there are taxis, but I honestly only know one person who actually calls one when he has had a few too many.) Illinois has tough DUI laws like revoking licenses and my favorite—a new law requiring first-time DUI offenders to install a Breath Alcohol Ignition Interlock Device in their cars starting 1 January 2009. A DUI is embarrassing—there are clear stakes at hand. I think if potential drunk drivers had a choice to take public transportation or face a DUI, they would take the public transit.

My question is: where are the “late night” or “all-night” busses that stop at a variety of suburban locations or the inexpensive or free “impaired driver” taxi cab ride? Should the local government offer transportation assistance to those under the influence? Should places that serve liquor band together and create some safe transportation network for their patrons?