« spam of the year: dependable forklifts | Main | quote of the week: how not to "fossilize" »

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

BruceMcF

So, given {define_extreme_definition_of_term}, nobody is really {term}.

This is a profoundly non-useful way to frame the question.

In any pragmatic, common sense meaning of the phrase "transit dependent", lots of people are transit dependent in areas with effective mass transit.

That is, the range of things they can currently do depends on the existence of transit.

That range of things may not include "without transit I will die" for any of them, so they will still live and be able to do some range of things without transit ...

... but the fact remains that there are some set of activities of their that are indeed transit dependent.

The argument in this piece turns around perfectly well to say "nobody is car dependent", but given the way that we have constructed the transport system in this country, large numbers of people actually are car dependent in a very real, legal sense. This is a challenge in traffic law enforcement, where a penalty is to lose a license and the motor vehicle criminal pleads that they need their car to get to work.

If nobody was "car dependent" in this sense, then there would never need be special concessions made for this case.

Will Douglas

This is nothing more than an argument for cutting off the poor in order to get more middle-class and wealthy people to ride transit. It is, as always, a completely false choice. Transit is an attractive alternative AND a social service. The United States has plenty of money available to fund major expansion of both frequency and service area. There is no good reason to pit these aspects, and therefore pit riders, against each other. Especially since as the polling repeatedly shows, the people most likely to vote for transit are those who have the fewest choices.

We need transit professionals who are thinking big, not thinking small, and looking to make transit the default mode for everyone, rather than accepting right-wing imposed constraints on our funding and trying to decide who gets good service and who gets screwed. But ultimately we need political leadership to reject these false choices and build a movement that can get a major transit expansion funded.

Nate Wessel

Good post!

I think it's important to look at people's lives from a fairly removed perspective when thinking about 'dependance'. People may indeed be now in positions to be 'dependant' on cars or transit or coffee or heroin or whatever else, but in most cases(fetal addictions perhaps excepted), these positions they're in are the result of choices, if indeed not always quite balanced choices, collective and individual, accumulated over lifetimes.
Few non-biological dependencies aren't open to being challenged.

We must all choose to be dependant on some specific set of things, and it's our job as advocates of transit to make the case for people to choose to be dependant on that instead of something else. Right now we're in a weird spot because in so many cities we're simply not realizing the economies of scale that allow transit to compete as it used to and as I think it will again. In the meantime, I think the best approach is to begin to realize those economies on a small scale, in specific corridors and grow it outward to the rest of a city. That's the targeted, ridership approach in a nutshell.

The social service model just doesn't look to me like it gets anywhere in the long-term.

david vartanoff

Thank you, Will, for making the case. I would add that AC Transit did tighten up transfer usage AND abandon neighborhoods (in the words of their own staff "savage cuts") leading to a serious drop in ridership. As to transit dependency, yes, many of us are by virtue of low vision or other physical barriers both to driving and cycling. I have said before that transfer charges constitute redlining of neighborhoods because they penalize those whose residences are not adjacent trunk lines.
Scrapping the F35 project alone would free up billions for improved transit.

Josh F.

The author is right in that in order for transit to truly succeed, it does need to be thought of as a legitimate alternative and not only as a social service. However, striving too hard for the former can be dangerous if social service needs are not being met (such as abandoning coverage to people whose only reasonable mobility choice is transit). Focusing purely on ridership can be disastrous to those who do not happen to live in high-density areas and who do not have reasonable alternatives to transit.

(Yes, in a technical sense, no one is completely transit dependent. However, that ignores the fact that many people do not have reasonable alternatives to transit and would experience extreme hardship if they did not have access to transit. It is imperative that these people not be abandoned in the strict pursuit of a ridership goal.)

It is important to note that most Canadian cities also maintain coverage of the entire urbanized area, in that almost all metropolitan areas in Canada have 90-99% of the population within walking distance of transit. While these Canadian cities have managed to make transit into an alternative and not merely a social service, transit in Canadian cities still covers everyone who needs it. Thus, while Canadian cities achieve higher ridership, they still meet all social-service needs, which are also very important.

Ultimately, the best approach in my opinion is the one the author himself mentions in the last paragraph with LTD: "At minimum 30 minute service within walking distance of all areas that have densities to support transit service but also provide the highest frequency that the market can support on each route." In other words, cover everyone who needs it first, and then increase frequencies on major high-ridership routes. In this way, full coverage and social-service goals can be achieved, and then we can start working on the larger goal of making transit a legitimate alternative to choice riders.

anonymouse

The most extreme view of the social service approach to transit that I've seen was that espoused by the Bus Riders' Union in Los Angeles. Their main argument against rail service, as I understood it, was that since minorities are a vast majority of bus riders, and a somewhat less overwhelming majority of rail riders, that rail expansion is racist and serving wealthy whites at the expense of poor minorities. The problem with that argument is that it's not really a zero-sum game like that. The reason that bus riders were overwhelmingly poor and minorities was because anyone who could afford anything else would use that, because the bus took three times longer. Rail service, especially subway service, is much more time-competitive in LA, and thus there are choice riders in addition to the baseline of the transit-dependent. And the transit-dependent poor people get to have faster transit too!
Though I should note that the key to this actually working in practice is having a city that's not completely segregated, so that people from different socioeconomic strata can all benefit from a given service improvement.

patfromigh

Something which I find puzzling about this conservation is, that for most US metropolitan areas, the disadvantaged tend to live in the inner city and/ or in denser neighborhoods. So as this discussion of ridership against coverage continues, the narrative sounds instead like the following. - It seems as though the poor, the disabled and the disadvantaged have been forced to live beyond the pale and now, by the abundant charity of the transit agency, these undeserving souls will be allowed to be transported back to civilization. The problem is this unmerited grace costs too much money, so just forget about them.

The true reality of most American cities is that higher income citizens live in outer-ring suburban communities which are arranged in low density cul-de-sacs. No matter how inefficient such a setup is for any mode of transportation, a significant sum of tax money is spent on sending school busses to the far reaches of such places. Meanwhile, an hourly cut-away bus to an apartment complex or mobile-home park is out of the question, because that somehow perpetuates the poverty cycle. Heavy rail and LRT lines go through poor neighborhoods, but won't have stops there so as not to disturb choice riders.

EngineerScotty

While I have little love for BRU, part of their complaint was that the Red and Purple lines serve downtown and Hollywood--wealthy parts of the city--and that funds to operate these was taken from bus service elsewhere.

Unfortunately, some of the BRU's argument was cultural in nature--and yes they do continue to embrace quasi-Marxist notions of the bus being the mode of transport of the proletariat, and rail being for the bourgeois. (There may also be a labor-solidarity issue, with rail perceived as a means of throwing transit workers off the job).

Nowadays, many LA rail lines serve poor and minority areas, particularly the Green Line and the southern half of the Gold Line.

Robert Wightman

patfromigh says:

"The true reality of most American cities is that higher income citizens live in outer-ring suburban communities which are arranged in low density cul-de-sacs. No matter how inefficient such a setup is for any mode of transportation, a significant sum of tax money is spent on sending school busses to the far reaches of such places."

Perhaps it is time to let the full consequences of the cost for serving such areas be borne by the residents and not by the general tax base.

In some major Canadian cities, especially Toronto, the inner city is becoming the area of choice and the outer parts are for the economically less fortunate, a reversal of what happened in the 50s and 60s.

Canada has always lagged behind the U.S. and perhaps it was fortunate as we did not devastate our city centres and green spaces with freeways. Whenever I visit U.S. cities and towns I am continually amazed by the space devoted to the automobile.

Sluggo

The distribution of the poor in American cities has gotten more complex. In the 1950s and 60s white flight and a "country living" ideal drove the middle classes to the suburbs. Federal mortgage subsidies also played a pivotal role: only greenfield development and "good" neighborhoods were eligible for 30-year fixed-rate, low-down-payment mortgages. Inner-city neighborhoods with more than a quarter minority population were redlined and thus ineligible for these mortgages. The full migration took thirty years, so the 1970s and 80s were the height of middle-class suburbs and working-class cities, and city populations reached their lowest. This led to the ironic conclusion that the poorest lived in the most walkable areas with the most frequent transit. But the areas were neglected so the infrastructure was left to stagnate and deteriorate.

Then in the 90s the trend started reversing, as the middle class started rediscovering cities and loving the shorter commutes and better transit, and established high-tech startups in urban areas. At first it was only a few cities, but now it has spread to many cities to a greater or lesser extent. This is driving up rents and housing costs in the areas that are most walkable and have the best transit, and is pushing the poor into the inner-ring suburbs in the "unfavored quarter" of the metropolitan area (the former industrial quarter). These suburbs were naturally built with low density and little transit and walkability, so they're an inconvenient place to be transit-dependent in.

Wanderer

If we had billions more for transit, we should spend it wisely. We should not spend on looping, circuitous social service style routes that fulfill some (non-riding) politician's vision of "serving everyplace (which therefore serves no place).

We should spend it on things like making service that's currently every 15 or 20 minutes run every 10 minutes, what's currently every 10 run every 5. We should spend it to establish and strengthen transit networks in the inner suburbs, and to connect them to the often job-rich outer suburbs. We should spend it on capital projects that make sense, like a subway down the multi-ethnic Wilshire corridor in Los Angeles. We should spend it building BRTs. There's an enormous amount of unfunded transit need, both in capital and operating cost.

Mike

I find this guest pote interesting, especially since the author is from the USA. American systems for the most part, except for a few, really have no coverage goals like their Canadian counterparts.

I have a problem with the idea of putting transit where it is thought to perform well, at the expense of coverage.

Cities like Toronto do not have high transit usage because transit is only provided on major high density routes. Transit is successful because one can get to virtually anywhere in the metropolitan area, including some pretty rural areas on regular seven day a week public transit services.

If transit does not allow me to travel to all parts of the urbanized area, then it also limits ridership on those coveted high ridership routes. Because people on those routes may also have to go to the so called underperforming areas sometimes.

I understand the whole idea of allocating a certain percentage to coverage, and others to ridership goals.
But I think it should be done on a service basis, and not percentage basis.
Ensure that something like 90% of residents have access to a basic bus service that operates seven days a week until late at night, and comes say every 30 minutes. Then you work up from there, and put higher frequency service in where it is needed, and where you can attract riders.

And on the note of where to put transit. We as planners have to stop thinking that transit will only work in high density areas with the perfect street layout. As Toronto so greatly shows, we have buses running every 10 minutes in complete sprawly subdivisions, that most planners would say should have a bus once an hour.
If you don't provide an attractive service, then how do you expect people to ride?

So my advice to the American transit professionals. You have got to get a lot more transit out there, and have a basic service reaching all parts of the metropolitan region. Because as it stands now, you can hardly get around in most American metropolitan areas, once outside the core city. And life does not end at the city limits

Ron Kilcoyne

It is always interesting reading the comment when a post is published. To Will Douglas – this is not merely an argument to cut off the poor so that more middle class and wealthy people ride transit. Re-read the post particularly the 6th paragraph. My point is that only when transit serves a broad population is there the chance to have the resources needed to provide great service to the community. The poor are short changed when resources are constrained. I specifically point out that providing premium service for high income groups must not be done at the expense of useful service to broader population groups.

Regarding David Vartanoff’s comment on AC Transit’s transfer charges – it was a dark day when this happened. I was Planning Manager when this occurred and argued vehemently that this was a mistake (as did my boss the Deputy GM for Service Development and Marketing). We failed and even though I thought it would be repealed when it didn’t generate the expected revenue and some of my successors tried to repeal it somehow it managed to live on. I believe that transit fares should be based on time or distance and never the number of vehicles or modes that are needed to complete a trip. Check out the Greater Bridgeport Transit website (gogbt.com) for the fare structure that I developed that fulfills this premise

Regarding Will Douglas’ second paragraph and the posts of wanderer and Mike – I agree. As I stated in the last paragraph of my post I really want to get to the day in which we don’t have to make a choice between coverage or ridership. I think big as do many of my colleagues but thinking big is not enough – it takes strategy coupled with patience and perseverance. The point of my post was to point out a mindset that I feel has held transit back and has pushed us into the position where we have to ration service. Changing the mindset, like thinking big, won’t suddenly result in transit utopia; if that is all it takes LTD would be providing at least a third more service - but they are essential ingredients.

Alyourpalster

First of all, I don't believe there are many 'choice' riders, if any.
Everybody takes transit because 'they have to'.
In the case of the so called 'choice riders' they don't really want to take transit but either its too expensive to drive or the traffic is horrible, or there is no place to park where they are going.
So the idea that there is a population of people who just can't wait to take transit is false, at least in the good ole USA its false IMO.
Second of all American style transit is so horrible because its never been taken seriously. Very few cities have 'real' frequent service, who wants to stand around waiting for a bus or train to show up.
Amerika is a country where cash is king and competition is worshiped. Transit requires a 'cooperation and equalization' of citizens. And when that occurs you hear cries of 'SOCIALISM' and people start running for the hills.

This country is so far away from decent transit the current transit model would have to be completely destroyed and a new model will have to be put in place.

The truth is Amerikan transit is here to enrich the people that work in it, the riders virtually don't count.

My 2 cents

Nathanael

The suburbanization of poverty and the suburbanization of employment -- in different suburbs -- means we are seeing a lot more of the worst possible scenario: poor people walking for many miles to get to work.

Unfortunately, I expect to see more of this. The suburbanization of employment is reversing, but the suburbanization of poverty is, if anything, accelerating.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

the firm

Jarrett is now in ...

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...