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