The Case for Bus Rapid Transit
in Los Angeles
by
Martin Wachs
Head Urban Planning Program
School of Architecture and Urban Planning
University of California, Los Angeles
Neil Simon, the New York playwright who became
an expatriate resident in Los Angeles in June, says he thinks
the city is on its way to becoming what London was thought
to be in the early sixties - - not a “swinging” city
as London was mislabeled, but a city with a fresh intellectual
breeze running through it that is stimulating ideas and the
arts and attracting young, talented people. Although it’s
too soon to pass judgment on the accuracy of his prophecy,
Los Angeles is showing signs of change and maturity. The
jokes about Southern California clichés still abound:
about the smog, the endless freeways, the absence of a sense
of city, the rampant materialism, the used-car salesmen in
white shoes and the housewives shopping with their hair in
curlers, and so forth. Yet, Los Angeles is developing a first-rate
theater; it is talking seriously about building a rail rapid
transit system; there are the beginnings of an effort to
restore the city’s shabby downtown area, and believe
it or not, pollution experts say atmospheric conditions are
getting better.
from “What’s Doing in Los Angeles,” by Robert Lindsey, New
York Times, Travel Section, Sunday, October 12, 1975. (end indented)
Such quotations show that the choices which we
are facing regarding a transportation system for Los Angeles
are very basic ones affecting the image and feeling associated
with the name of our city. It would appear that to citizens of
the world, including many living in Los Angeles, a rail transit
system goes along with first-rate theater, a ballet company,
major league sports, and skyscrapers as part of the image of
a classy and leading city. Freeways and smog, on the other hand,
connote used car salesmen in white shoes and shoppers with their
hair in curlers. Perhaps this is why so many people who should
know better are avid supporters of rail transit for Los Angeles.
Although the technical arguments for building a ten or eleven billion dollar
transit system are extremely weak, and the benefits seem to be far outweighed
by the costs, our business, intellectual, and civic leaders continue to believe
that we should spend the money for such a system. Perhaps those of us who feel
we “have a stake” in Los Angeles should finally admit that our major
reasons for favoring rail rapid transit stem from a basic sense of cultural
inferiority when we compare our city with London, Paris, New York, and especially
San Francisco, and that hopes for smog reduction are not really at the heart
of our longings for rapid transit.
Our downtown business community steadfastly supported recent referenda for
taxes in support of rail transit and, having failed, it continues to support
the idea of a smaller “starter rail line” to at least take the first
step. Many have claimed that these downtown property owners, bankers, and retailers
are supporting a rail system in their own economic self interest. I believe,
however, that such alternatives as a bus transit system for Los Angeles could
provide downtown with economic advantages equal to those of a rail system,
at a much lower cost to the taxpayers. Rather than acting in their self interest,
our bankers and real estate magnates, like members of our cultural and intellectual
communities, are fighting off the used car salesmen in white shoes by supporting
rail transit investments which will cost billions of dollars, but at least
we should be honest with ourselves.
It is clear that rail transit offers Los Angeles very little over more mundane
systems such as all-bus rapid transit in people-moving ability, attractiveness
to riders, smog-reduction, service to the carless, or any other absolute criterion
of performance. In considering whether we can really invest billions in rail
transit for the sake of creating a new image, we must recognize that financial
and fiscal responsibility can be an important part of an image too, and that
the Big Apple is now mentioned much less frequently than the Big MAC. We cannot
afford the luxury of a rail transit system in Los Angeles primarily because
it offers no transportation service advantages over the much less costly options
provided by an all-bus transit system.
Reasons for Investing in Transit At All
Recognizing that Los Angeles today has one of the world’s leading
transportation networks in its freeway system, and that the Southern California
Rapid Transit District (SCRTD) operates the fourth-largest system in this country,
there are only a few major reasons for considering significant additions to
our current transit network. The first is that we want to get more travelers
our of their cars. Automobiles cause smog, consume energy, and, when we all
decide to use them at the same time, use up the amazingly large capacity of
our freeway network, causing delays and annoyance due to congestion. By providing
better transit systems, we hope to get some drivers to shift willingly to public
transit, bringing about time savings for those who switch as well as for those
who continue to use the freeways. In turn, we hope this shift will cause us
to consume less gasoline and will contribute to cleaner air. Another reason
for investing in public transportation is that there are many people who have
inadequate mobility under our prsent systme. The elderly, the very young, the
handicapped, and the very poor may not own cars or have the ability to drive.
Current transit service does not reach all of these people, and those it does
reach are often ot provided with short waiting times or direct routings.
It is important to recognize that we are only considering new systems to be
added to existing ones. No new transit system will cause an immediate abandonment
of freeways or current travel patterns. Changes will be small and gradual.
After studying the date produced by the California Department of Transportation
(CalTrans) and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) and
dozens of consulting firms, I have concluded and will demonstrate in this paper
that with respect to the objective of shifting people form cars to mass transit,
a rail system offers no advantage over buses when added to our currently existing
regional network. Although no advantage is to be gained by building rial transit,
such a system is much more expensive to build than an all-bust alternative.
With respect to the provision of better service to the mobility-limited, an
all-buss system has clear advantages in performance over a rail network. The
only point on which I would agree that a rail system offers advantages over
an all-bus transit system is in the that a rail system is part of an image
of a sophisticated and worldly city. Having grown up in New York, I personally
feel more comfortable in a subway city than in a freeway city. Nevertheless,
the intangible images should be treated openly and not hidden behind half-truths
about ridership or service for the mobility-limited.
Changing Ridership Patterns
It has been argued by many community leaders that an all-bus transit system
would be inferior to a rail transit system in attracting commuters out of their
autos. Analysis conducted here in Los Angeles, plus actual experience here
and elsewhere show that a bus system can do as well as a rail system in this
regard.
Consultants to SCRTD conducted hundreds of computer simulations to determine
what the ridership would be on many different networks. In each test some conditions
were varied or population growth assumptions were changed. It is impossible,
therefore, to simply cite the results of some specific computer test to conclude
that bus patronage would match rail transit patronage. It all depends upon
which bus network, which aerial network, which gasoline prices, which population
estimates, etc. were employed. Nevertheless, a general pattern emerges showing
that bus systems do produce ridership comparable to rail systems. In one important
report, for example, consultants to SCRTD compared one possible rail network,
called R2A, with one possible bus network, called R1. The rail network, including
bus feeder components, was very similar to the ones finally recommended before
the bond issue referendum of 1974. It included 150 miles of rail right-of-way
plus express busways and feeder buses. The bus alternative included a significant
augmentation of existing service to the extent that most major freeways would
carry express bus operations. The results of these computer runs, reported
in April 1974, showed that the 1990 daily patronage of the transit network
which included the rail lines (plus bus feeders and other components) would
be 1,317,00. By comparison, the all-bus system would carry 1,230,00 daily passengers.
We would agree that these “typical” computer runs show small differences.
Furthermore, since the network which included the rail system (R2A) also included
an extensive bus network as well, it is instructive to repeat that this ridership
comparison is for the entire networks being compared. Of the total patronage
being served, only 640,000 of the total cited in the fires (rail) network would
be riding on rails; the remained of the 1.3 million would be using only the
bus portions of the rail-dominated system for their trips.
A number of other technical reports convey essentially the same message. The
difference in ridership between bus and rail transit systems is small in comparison
with changes which could be brought about in modal choice by changes in other
variables. Parking costs, and differences in walking times from a parking lot
or a transit stop to work location, actually have a greater influence upon
the decision to ride transit than whether the transit portion the trip is made
by bus or train. The consultants to SCRTD reported that the combination of
a $2.00 per day tax on parking plus a ten-minute increase in walking time from
parking stall to work site could cause a forty percent increase in transti
patronage to the CBD. This shift is far greater than can be achieved by any
bus or transit network introduced in the absence of such charges or walking
constraints. The consultants went on to say that: “If the general level
of transit service is poor, transit patronage is very sensitive to changes
in headway, speed, and fares. If, however, transit service in already at a
relatively good level, such as existing service to the Central Business District
(CBD), patronage is less sensitive to system changes.”
In addition, when considering the specifics of travel to the CBD, the consultants
also observed that even a 30% or 40% increase in CBD-bound transit trips would
not necessitate the higher passenger capacity of a rail system. This occurs
because the traffic bound for the CBD is such a small proportion of the total
traffic volume in any corridor that a 40% increase in transit use among CBD-bound
trips can be achieved with only a 10% or 15% increase in transit trips in any
particular corridor or direction. If such observations are correct, the economic
viability of downtown is not particularly enhanced by a rail system. A rail
system per se does not get more people to leave their cars for CBD-bound trips
than a bus system, and buses provide ample capacity because of the multitude
of origins from which downtown workers travel.
Consumer Appeal of Buses
Despite the evidence produced by computer models that a bus system in Los
Angeles would attract about as many riders as a rail system, many leading citizens
continue to resist this conclusion on the grounds of “obvious logic.” They
say that an automobile provides comfort, privacy, music, and that Angelenos
have a “love affair” with their cars. Thus, the argument goes, we
will not be able to attract riders to a smelly old bus. Instead, only sleek,
modern trains will be able to appeal to the auto commuter sufficiently to get
him out of his car. All of the evidence available would indicate that this
is untrue.
With respect to such vehicle comfort and amenity features as seat configuration,
carpeting, ride quality, and availability of diversions (e.g., capability for
radio listening), respondents to attitudinal surveys considering “ideal” transportation
systems and users of real systems have given similar reactions. In general,
provided that basic physiological needs are met through the avoidance of excessive
vibration, noise, odor, or jerk, it appears that physical luxury while riding
a vehicle, or the presence of a wide range of amenities, is less important
to the traveler’s decision process than travel time, cost, and service
reliability.
While travelers in one study cited protection from inclement weather when waiting
for a vehicle, availability of package and baggage space, and ability to listen
to the radio as major contributors to the difference between their satisfaction
levels with autos and existing transit vehicles, they rated such variables
as being significantly less important to modal choice than travel time reliability,
cost, avoidance of waiting, etc., for both work and non-work trips. The conclusion
to be reached is that while commuters recognize the inherent advantages of
the automobile with respect to such factors, they were not critical to the
choice between modes. Rather they were seen as “extra bonuses” associated
with automobile availability.
While the broad concepts of comfort and amenity are generally less important
to traveler modal-choice decisions than other dimensions of service, a few
specific elements of comfort and amenity do seem to be more important factors
chosen, the presence or absence of air conditioning consistently was rated
as more important than other elements of comfort and amenity. In several studies
seat assurance emerged as only slightly less important than travel time reliability
and often as important as cost differences between modes. An interview study
of nearly 200 people who were riding specifically designed “new feature” buses
in service on Shirley Highway routes in Washington, D.C. showed that 90% of
the respondents rated schedule reliability as having a significant impact on
their modal choice, while no feature in the comfort or amenity category was
rated nearly as important. From among about a dozen features which were incorporated
in the special feature buses, only air conditioning, cited as important by
71% of the respondents, and seat assurance, cited by 62% the respondents, were
considered significant in the decision to ride. Other features, including improved
leg room, larger windows, carpeting, absence of advertising, etc., were all
significantly less important than other travel service variables, including
fares, travel time, and schedule reliability.
The conclusion to be reached about developing transit improvements is that
commuter reactions have consistently shown that it is not necessary to provide
luxurious interiors and plush environments in order to attract riders. Meeting
basic physiological requirements, providing for a high probability of seat
availability, and incorporating temperature control are the most critical aspects
of comfort and amenity which should be addressed in vehicle design. To the
extent that additional items of amenity, such as space for packages, might
be incorporated in the design, the vehicles can provide greater attractiveness,
but such features do not seem most critical in attracting patrons out of their
automobiles. If buses provide travel time advantages over other modes, if they
provide reliable service, and if they have ample seating capacity, there are
no research findings to indicate that they would have less commuter appeal
than trains.
Indeed, buses are able to offer superior service to rail systems with respect
to one important feature of autos. Buses can provide something much closer
to “door-to-door service” than can rail transit. While trains must
usually rely upon autos as feeders, or must depend upon bus service and a time
consuming mode change as part of a trip, buses can operate on local streets
in residential neighborhoods and, after picking up their passengers, enter
a freeway or a reserved lane for and “express” trip to downtown at
a speed which approximates a rail vehicle. Thus, the time consuming mode change
can be eliminated, and the bus can provide travel time advantages over rail
transit if we consider an entire trip from door to door.
Results from a few bus systems which include high-speed express operations
of the sort which we might have on many freeways indicate that this type of
service can attract upper-income, auto-owning commuters who do have a choice.
The best example of this is the Shirley Highway Service in Washington, D.C.,
where buses collect people from many residential neighborhoods, and then travel
downtown on reserved freeway lanes at speeds which exceed those of autos moving
alongside. Through extensive on-board interview surveys, the upper-income riders
of this service indicate that they have been selecting express buses for the
journey to work because of high levels of schedule reliability, favorable travel
times in comparison with the automobile, and convenient access to the buses
without significant waiting and transfer times. Interview studies showed that
82% of those electing to use the buses in this corridor did have a car available
for the trip, whereas nearly half the users of conventional pre-existing bus
service in the corridor did not have cars available. Three-fourths of the Shirley
riders who utilized park-and-ride service had incomes in excess of $15,000,
while 56% of those who walked to the bus had such incomes. The Shirley service
also attracted more males than conventional service, with 60% of Shirley riders
being male versus 45% of the riders of conventional buses in the corridor (sex
ratios are important because females are more likely to be captives of transit
than males). In summary, it was found that on many socio-economic and demographic
dimensions, those electing to use the premium buses-on-freeways were more like
the typical auto commuter than the typical bus commuter. Of course, as mentioned
earlier, the availability of free or low-cost parking at the work site appeared
to be one significant deterrent to use of the premium bus service. The most
impressive statistic is that of all the commuters in the Shirley Corridor who
lived in areas served by the buses and worked in areas served by the buses,
some forty percent have elected to ride the bus transit system rather than
driving to work. In interview surveys, it was also found that free or very
low-cost parking was available to many of those who continued to drive to work.
Thus, express bus transit, possibly in combination with revisions in parking
fee structures, can be expected to provide as significant a consumer response
as would any rail transit proposals.
But what about closer to home? The San Bernardino (El Monte) Express Bus Experiment
offers less service than the Shirley, having fewer routes, and relying upon
a larger share of its riders to drive to the bus terminals rather than to be
picked up in their neighborhoods. Yet, this busway is now carrying nearly 12,000
daily commuters (one-way) and the bus lanes are already carrying, during the
peak two-hour period, a number of passengers roughly equivalent to the same
lanes if they were packed with autos during the same hours. The difference,
of course, is that the bus lane is not yet operating near its total capacity.
Preliminary results from the busway experiment in Los Angeles appear similar
to the results from the Shirley Highway. Here, while only 35% of pre-busway
transit users in the corridor were male, exactly half the premium service users
were male. About 80% of new service users come from households owning one or
more autos, and 48% of the new service users previously used automobiles rather
than buses for the same trip. Significantly, 80% of the busway users had incomes
of over $10,000 per year, while users of pre-busway transit service included
only 46% from the income groups above $10,000.
Relationship Between Transit Use, Smog, and Energy
While a bus transit system can provide service equivalent to a rail system
at lower total cost, and such a system would attract riders in numbers approximately
equal to the ridership attracted by a rail system, it should be clearly stated
that neither transit alternative can eliminate smog, significantly reduce energy
consumption, or eliminate congestion. We already have several examples which
provide clues as to why this is so. First, consider the downtown minibuses.
Some people felt that these would reduce auto-trip-making downtown. In fact,
interviews show that the vast majority of the minibus riders previously made
the same trip by walking rather than driving; or that they are now making trips
which they did not make before! By comparison, only about 10% of mini-bus users
had formerly made similar trips by driving. Also, the much-publicized “commuter-computer” car
pool system in Los Angeles has received as many applications for matching from
current transit users as it has received as many applications for matching
from current transit users as it has from auto drivers. Those who hope that
carpooling will significantly reduce auto travel must recognize that many will
switch from transit to autos by virtue of car-pooling programs. Similarly,
over the long haul, major transit improvements themselves will not cause a
huge decline in auto travel. Surveys of BART users have shown that only 25%
of the current users previously made the same trip by driving, while more than
40% were previously bus users. Traffic on the trans-bay bridges is estimated
to be only 2% lower than it would now be without BART (4% lower during peak
hours).
A region wide commuter transit system relying on either buses or rail service
appeals mostly to the markers of longer trips, and the trips made for work
or school purposes. During the next twenty years, however, it is expected that
non-work and non-school trips will grow at a rate three times the rate of growth
in work and school trips. It is not surprising, therefore, that in studies
of widely different strategies for meeting air quality and energy objectives,
and RAND Corporation concluded that a tripling of bus services would produce
less improvement in air quality than significant increase in gasoline prices
and parking fees. The latter would cause many trips to be foregone entirely,
while the transit options, whether using steel wheels or rubber tires, would
cause a smaller number of trips to be diverted. Unless we change our basic
system of pricing transportation service, I must agree with SCRTD’s own
consultants who wrote, in April 1974:
In considering these impacts on auto travel and gasoline consumption from what
is essentially a Los Angeles County transit program, it must be appreciated
that the transit program will have only a modest impact on the total five-county
regional problems, regardless of the strategies employed or the way in which
the assumptions may vary. The impact is much more significant in the central
portion of Los Angeles County. The effect of a major transit program will not
be so much to reduce freeway congestion as it will be to travel in congested
periods and to provide a new level of mobility for those who do not or cannot
travel by auto.
Service the Mobility Limited
Earlier, I mentioned that an important objective for transit improvement
in Los Angeles is the provision of services for the mobility limited. I believe
that an all-bus network can provide service for the mobility limited superior
to the service provided by a rail system.
Among the mobility limited I would include the elderly, handicapped, non-drivers,
the poor, and the very young. All of these groups are more dependent upon public
transportation for all trip purposes than are other groups in our city. For
the most part, these groups required local transportation service within communities.
The elderly, handicapped, and very young have very little occasion to travel
downtown,, but might rather be expected to make shorter trips to the doctor,
to local recreation facilities, to shopping centers, etc. Thus, the local collector
portions of a transportation network would be of more use to such people than
the "line-haul" or trunk lines, an these collector portions would
most likely be provided by bus whether or not we elect to use rail transit
for the corridors of heaviest movement. However, an all-bus system would involve
less capital investment in the fixed-route guide ways, and would, therefore,
make more money available for more buses which can provide service to the mobility
limited in addition to providing commuter service.
While a train is confined to the tracks to wait for its peak period riders,
a bus can be used during the peak hour to take workers downtown or school children
to schools, and can then be used off-peak in the provision of door-to-door
subscription service enabling the elderly and handicapped to shop or obtain
health care. This flexibility provides the mobility limited with significant
opportunities which could certainly also be provided in a system which also
included rail transit, but it provided these at lower coat and with grater
efficiency. Furthermore, if we assign highest priority to a rail commuter network,
it will consume so much of our available funding that we will never be able
to provide fully for the mobility limited.
Even the spatial pattern of the proposed rail network results in the provision
of less service to the poor. For example, both Van Nuys and Watts are connected
to the downtown area by the proposed SCRTD rail network. It runs out, however,
that 85% of the workers residing in Van Nuys have skills which match those
provided by the jobs in downtown, while only 20% of the workers in Watts have
such skills. Crosstown service from Watts to the industrial areas is more needed
by its working population than is express service to downtown. Buses can provide
needed service from and around Watts, and indeed traffic volumes do not warrant
crosstown rail service there. But again, by putting a huge amount of money
into rail network, we will inevitably elect a slow down our programs of improvement
to local and crosstown service which is more needed by blue collar workers.
Conclusion
There are many possible approaches to improving transit services in Los
Angeles. BY focusing attention on the building of a rail system we are overlooking
many important issues of potentially grater importance than the particular
technology which is chosen. Technical analysis has shown that bus service can
match rail service in ridership appeal, travel time, and frequency of service.
It has many advantages over rail systems in terms of flexibility, and a critical
advantage in the area of cost. Rail systems have much larger capital (construction)
costs than bus systems, and the promise of lower operating (labor) costs in
rail systems are often unrealized because of union demands and because modern
rail systems rely heavily upon an extensive network of bus feeders. Observers
of BART have confirmed this view.
But the analysis also shows us that parking fees, walking distances, transfer
policies and many other characteristics of transit service may actually outweigh
the differences between rail and bus transit in the minds of commuters making
choices about driving versus public transit. Thus, a carefully designed program
of pricing and incentives for transit use, coupled with disincentives for auto
use, can bring about a far greater shift of travel to public transit than any
rail transit construction program. This is especially true of travel downtown,
because the density of destinations there affords opportunities which cannot
be matched elsewhere. Express and subscription bus service to downtown, coupled
with certain employee benefit programs (e.g., a choice between free transit
passes ad free parking as opposed to only the latter), and fiscal programs
which combine transit incentives with auto incentives (e.g., parking taxes
which are used to finance transit improvements) can bring about dramatic improvements
in transit use, and in downtown’s attractiveness. These can be accomplished
in much less time than it would take to construct a rail transit system; and
at much lower cost. We should abandon our blind adherence to an image of transit
which is not relevant to our city and our era, and processed with the consideration
of more practical and comprehensive transportation programs for Los Angeles
though they may also be less dramatic in the short run.
Discussion
by
Morris Pardue
California State University, Northridge
I found Professors Wachs’ paper a very sensible
treatment of the topic of buses as a means to improve Los Angeles’ transportation
system. The following brief remarks will merely add some emphasis,
and additional evidence to support some of the points that he
makes.
Professor Wachs principal point is that buses offer as good an alternative
to driving as a rail system might to reduce some of the undesirable external
effects of automobile usage, at a fraction of the cost. The counter-argument
offered by proponents of the Sunset Coast Line is that buses cannot attract
fastidious drivers from their cars. Wachs cites evidence which indicates that
amenity and opulence are far outweighed by other considerations in computer’s
modal choices. Thus, the proposed investments in luxurious rail cars would
probably induce a very nominal increase in the demand for ridership at what
the experience of other urban rail systems indicates would be an extraordinary
increase in cost.
What in fact, are the relative costs of bus versus rail transit? Professor
Hilton, in Federal Transit Subsidies, cites a Department of Transportation
study which estimates that rail costs (such as those of BART) exceed express
bus-way costs by a factor of 6:1 for rights-of-way, 4:1 per seat on rolling
stock, and 2:5:1 per seat-mile for operating costs. However, given the probable
degree of over-investment projected in the current plans for Los Angeles, the
disparity in total costs would probably be much greater. John Kain, in a study
on Atlanta, estimated that exclusive bus lanes, automatic metering of right-of-ways,
and similar devices would accomplish as much as the proposed rail system for
that city, at less than two percent of the cost.
Given this extraordinary profligacy, the issue of the regressiveness of the
scheme to finance the Sunset Coast Line merits additional consideration. Studies
on the more successful transit lines proudly point to figures which show that
most new riders are upper-income, and therefore must have been attracted from
their cars. Thus, while most trunk-line rail riders will probably be upper-income
commuters, everyone will pay an equal percentage of his expenditures under
a sales tax. As a result, we have the prospect of having well-to-do suburban
residents riding to work in swivel-chaired coaches, financed by sales-tax dollars
paid by everyone who will have little use for the system.
It has also been pointed out that long-haul rail lines tend to compete with
the same type of bus lines (as a Wilshire subway would compete with the Wilshire
bus). These more patronized, and more profitable lines have in the past been
used to cross-subsidize less intensively used cross-town lines which tend to
serve more low-income people. A rather telling feature of the Sunset Coast
Line plan is that tax receipts could be used only for rail service and not
to surplant the more successful bus routes, it might be difficult for bus authorities
to continue providing bus service to less profitable low-income areas.
A final comment on the cost of the proposed system reflects the apparent appreciation
that some public officials have of the concept of opportunity cost. I was privy
to a conversation with Supervisor Ward’s representative after his talk,
in which he revealed the reasoning behind his perplexing statement that the
goal of the plan was to find the best way to exhaust an additional one-cent
sales tax. Apparently, the feeling is that the state plans to levy an additional
expenditures according to the Serrano decision, and if this is approved, it
will be very difficult to pass an additional cent for transit in the future.
Thus, the impression is left that the fear exists that assuming but one cent
can be approved, if we don’t use it on these highly questionable transit
investments, it might be wasted on something like education.
Given that buses might be used to deal with some of our transportation problems
at a much lower cost than rail, how might they best be used? I was pleased
that Professor Wachs’ paper did not advocate massive additional expenditures
on buses or contend that they could solve all of our problems. Apparently,
the most successful use of buses has been achieved on express lines with preferential
lanes along freeways such as the Shirley Highway system into Washington, D.C.
However, even this acclaimed project has run at a deficit. Such a deficit might
be justified on the basis that all benefits do not accrue to users, and that
the use of the bus system tends to mitigate some of the undesirable external
effects of driving. The external effects generally considered are congestion
and air pollution.
To what extent can we expect buses or other forms of transit to reduce these
problems? In general, it has been shown that transit systems have little effect
on congestion. The experience of other cities has shown that most of the increase
in rail or express bus ridership is attracted not from drivers, but from car
passengers, other transit, and previous non-trip-makers. Even a survey on the
celebrated Shirley Highway system showed that only twenty-three percent of
riders were previously drivers, and the Skokie, Illinois railway found that
only twelve percent of riders to Chicago’s Loop had previously driven
downtown. Professor Wachs’ figures seem consistent with these findings,
showing that of the projected 640,000 riders on a given rail system in Los
Angeles, all but 87,000, (or about fourteen percent ex-drivers) would be attracted
not from cars, but from a bus system.
Professor Hilton, in Federal Transit Subsidies, noted that the effect on a
new transit system paralleling existing auto routes is generally a once-and-for-all
delay in the growth of auto use of that which would occur over six months to
one year’s time. This amount of growth is usually indistinguishable from
the ordinary variation in traffic. To apply this result to a local example,
an additional lane for express buses is planned on the San Diego freeway to
the San Fernando Valley. Assuming the service is attractive to some, there
may be a temporary switch of some drivers to buses on this route. This would
reduce traffic on the freeway, make commuting appear a less arduous prospect,
and attract a greater population to the Valley. If, in the long run, more commuting
residents are attracted to the Valley, auto congestion on the freeway won’t
be reduced. And, in terms of air pollution, if these additional residents use
their cars for local trips, the extra car-owning population may, if anything,
have the perverse effect of aggravating air pollution in the Valley.
Given this gloomy assessment, what policies might make buses or other forms
of transit more effective in combating congestion and air pollution? As Professor
Wachs points out, disincentives for auto usage (such as higher gas prices)
appear to most effective in this regard. Of course, it is not the goal to discourage
driving for its own sake. Rather, the purpose of such disincentives would be
to make drivers bear the cost that they individually impose in terms of additional
congestion and air pollution, so that the cost to society of additional trips
won’t exceed the benefits imputed by drivers. If drivers bear this cost
and alternatives exist, they will substitute other modes for driving. Thus,
if we are going to provide these alternative modes, some form of disincentive
will make them more effective.
What types of disincentives might be employed? Let us consider two types: One
common type is different forms of pecuniary disincentives such as tolls, parking
fees, and so on. An alternative type, one which I feel is much less desirable,
is a disincentive in real terms, involving waiting time or inconvenience.
The current “Diamond Lane” experiment on the Santa Monica Freeway
may be an example of such a disincentive service. The Diamond Lane offers car-pooling
drivers the prospect of faster travel while on the freeway, with an implicit
toll in terms of the cost of finding two colleagues with similar interests,
loss of independence, and so on. Although I won’t prejudge the final outcome,
it may be the case that this cost is too high for most individuals, and few
people will avail themselves of its use. Thus, with already existing residential
and employment patterns, the ultimate result would be to reduce the capacity
of the freeway. The resulting slowed times and aggravation may cause some people
to switch to buses or to surface streets. But unlike pecuniary disincentives,
the lost time and inconvenience expanded in inducing them to do so can never
be recovered.
By contrast, pecuniary disincentives like tolls and parking fees might (however
imperfect) be rebatable to users. For instance, proceeds might be used in lieu
of property tax increases in areas served by freeways. In addition, these payments
would not ordinarily be regressive in that they would usually fall on upper-income
long-haul commuters. In fact, they might be regarded as progressive if used
to subsidize less profitable transit service in low-income areas where justified.
Of course, one of the dangers of imposing disentives to driving, whether real
or pecuniary, is that one might make the disincentive so great as to reduce
the general welfare. If the narrow goal of having one sparsely-used Diamond
Lane is to reduce the number of cars on the freeway, certainly permanent barriers
at the freeway entrances would be more effective in this regard. In the Bay
Area, making drivers along routes paralleling BART deflate one tire, or having
those who traverse the Bay Ridge drive across in reverse, would surely an increase
rapid transit ridership and make BART appear a much greater success. However,
it is clear that the goal of such disincentives should not be to encourage
carpooling as a virtuous activity, or to justify the sunk costs of transit
investments, but rather to increase the general well-being.
The well-being of the Los Angeles citizenry will surely be affected by the
outcome of the vote on the current rail transit proposal. Hopefully, more modest
and prudent approaches, such as Professor Wachs’ advocacy of buses as
a transit alternative, will ultimately be implemented.
Top | Home | Contents | Next
