Where Transit Works

Public policies favoring dispersal of urban settle­ment and the proliferation of the automobile have contributed to a decline of public transportation in the United States. Even in urban areas today, 96 percent of all motorized travel is by automobile; only 4 percent is on public transportation, compared to some 14 percent 25 years ago. And close to half the nation’s transit travel is confined to the Tri-State New York Region — with less than one-tenth of the nation’s popu­lation.

Yet political pressure for more and better transit remains firm to:

• Enlarge the mobility of those who for reasons of health, age or income cannot drive.
• Strengthen urban centers and reduce their need for highways.
• Reduce pollution and conserve energy.

This study demonstrates that only changes in the nation’s urban development pattern will achieve all of these goals effectively. Improvements in transit service and fare cuts will increase transit ridership, but they will not cut nationwide auto use much. Restraints on auto use will shift some trips to public transportation, but most of the foregone auto trips will simply not be made. By contrast, increasing the size and compact­ness of downtowns and other clusters of employment and increasing residential densities, particularly near downtowns, will cut auto trips without reducing people’s mobility as much as when the auto is restrain­ed directly: more auto trips will shift to public trans­portation, and there will also be more opportunities for trips on foot.

Of course, increasing the density of urban areas in America flies in the face of a long-term trend. The huge investment in spread-out development cannot be easily abandoned. Return to the older cities is further dis­couraged by poverty, crime, lack of amenities and high tax rates. Land development practices favor construc­tion on vacant land over redevelopment. Neverthe­less, with smaller households, for whom low density is not necessarily an asset, with more white-collar and service occupations suited to city environments, with a rising concern for preservation of agricultural and open land, a potential for reinforcing higher density areas does exist. It could lead to less mechanical travel, greater choice, and a more urbane way of life.

This potential will have to be realized if the nation confronts the need to reduce its consumption of energy and other physical resources. With dwindling reserves of liquid fuels and with the inevitably higher cost of foreseeable substitutes, the long-term viability of an auto-dominated urban pattern is uncertain. Besides, higher densities save energy and materials not only in transportation but also in domestic and commercial consumption, and by preserving open land.

In addition to long-term considerations, there are more immediate considerations of efficiency. Both labor and other resource costs of public transporta­tion depend on the level of its use; to keep these costs within reason, there must be substantial passenger de­mand, which in turn depends on the density of settle­ment. High quality transit service in areas of low densi­ty and low demand can easily exceed the costs· of the automobile not only in dollars, but also in energy and materials consumption.

In this light, the study addresses two questions:

1. New urban facilities and housing are being built; what pattern of location and what density can support what type and quality of transit?
2. Transit systems are being extended and new ones built; what kind of transit service can be supported where, and at what cost?