The Mess In Mass Transit

Though demand is up, the service is down

A i the gas shortage forces them to rely much less on their large cars, millions of Americans have run smack into a painful reality: unlike all other industrial nations, the U.S. lacks a coherent, efficient and low-cost system of mass transportation.

True, some big, old cities, notably New York, Boston, Chicago and Philadelphia, have extensive rapid transit But ila most without exception the equipment is rundown, the subway stations dingy and dangerous and the scheduling haphazard. In most other cities and towns, mass transit is either seriously inadequate or practically nonexistent. Without a car, it is extremely difficult, and sometimes impossible, to get from home to work or to shopping in many cities.

This is a tragic decline for a nation that emerged from the gas-rationing days of World War II with excellent mass transit. Ironically, the U.S. fell victim to postwar prosperity. As the economy began to boom, American life-styles changed dramatically. Instead of living in a city apartment and riding a trolley to work, people wanted a home in the suburbs and an auto or preferablly two. As a consequence, mass transit became caught in a vicious downward spiral: the more riders that were lost the worse the service became; in turn, bad service drove away additional riders.

Meanwhile, the powerful highway lobby-- composed of the automakers oil companies, construction firms, Teamsters and building unions--exertred its enormous muscle to persuade Government to build more and more roads-- until the nation became almost totally dependent on the auto and truck. Until the gas crisis began to hit home three months ago, 90% of all U.S. travel was done in private autos and 75% of all goods were carried in trucks.

The mass transit crisis defies quick solution. One reason: a serious shortage of capacity to build new equipment. Of the 16 firms that made big buses four decades ago, only four are left, and of them only two-- Grumman Flexible and General Motors-- are making city buses. Their combined output is fewer than 3,000 a year. Hence the U.S., which will need at least 36,000 new buses during the next four years, will have to turn to foreign manufacturers.

Pullman, once the proudest name in the U.S. rail car industry, announced in March that it was quitting the passenger field altogether. Only three months later the New York City Transit Authority sued Pullman for having delivered at least 235 subway cars that had serious structural flaws. Budd now remains the only U.S. maker of rail cars and trolleys. But because of the high price of its equipment, it is being beaten out by foreign competitors San Diego is buying trolleys for its 16-mile line to the Mexican border, on which construction will begin later this year, from a West German supplier.

U.S. manufacturers have not yet come back to the mass transit market, although there has been a recent surge in passenger demand. During the past two years, while gas prices steadily increased, the nationwide number of travelers using mass transit has risen an average 4.4% a month over the preceding year, to an estimated 27,775,000 a day. In May, as California began taking the brunt of the first gasoline shortfalls, ridership across the U S Climbed 7.3%. Mass transit experts prediet that the June figures will show an increase "in the double digits," perhaps adding up to a two-month gain of 2 million travelers each day.

In several cities, notably Denver Seattle and Portland, Ore., mass transport now carries nearly 50% of all commuters. In gas-starved southern Connecticut and Westchester County, the number of passengers elbowing their way onto Conrail's already crowded Manhattan-bound trains has increased sharply.

As a result of the crushloads, mass transit companies are trying to patch up old equipment that should have been junked years ago. Commuter trains on Boston's Woburn-Winchester line are so decrepit that they are not allowed to travel faster than 15 m.p.h. Cleveland is refurbishing 50-year-old trolleys on the Shaker Heights line. Though the maximum efficient life for a bus is twelve years, Los Angeles is repairing some dating back to the early '50s. Kansas City has reactivated 60 rattletrap buses that it previously had retired. In desperation, Houston is leasing buses from Continental Trailways, and Miami is pressing school buses into service.

The Carter Administration has not been helpful. Instead of seizing on mass transit as a major means of conserving gasoline, Jimmy Carter barely mentioned it in his April 1977 "moral equivalent of war" speech that kicked off his energy program. Last spring Carter finally stated that part of the windfall tax on oil companies should be set aside for mass transport. Yet the Administration still lacks a coherent policy or an effective advocate for it. Secretary of Transportation Brock Adams is a firm supporter, but he lacks the backing of the President and the other Georgians in the White House. After he was forced last spring by Congress to propose drastic cutbacks in Amtrak service at a time when ridership was climbing, Adams lost much of his standing with state and local transportation officials.

Even so, there is considerable federal aid from the Urban Mass Transportation Administration, which was founded in 1964 during Lyndon Johnson's presidency. UMTA provides 80% of the construction funds after states and local communities have raised the first 20%, and this year it will contribute $3.3 billion to 5,803 transit undertakings.

Unfortunately, squabbling among local communities slows the selection process. Since most rapid transit authorities encompass at least two and sometimes as many as eight city and county governments, new plans tend to become ensnarled in local rivalries and prejudices. Virginia Governor John Dalton has just sidetracked a planned 1% sales tax in the state's northern counties that would have helped support the Washington Metro underground-and-elevated rail system. Detroit's plan for a southeastern Michigan transit system is being blocked by opposition from adjoining towns whose leaders say that they must pay more than a fair share of the costs and whose predominantly white residents fear that the system would make their city too easily accessible to Detroit blacks.

Even when community leaders finally agree on what they want, the time needed to build a system is staggering. If an 18-mile subway planned to link downtown Los Angeles with part of the residential San Fernando Valley gets federal funding this year, the line is not expected to be completed until 1990. Meanwhile, inflation makes original cost estimates ridiculous. In 1968 the entire 101-mile Washington Metro was planned to cost $2.5 billion; already $4 billion has been spent, but it is only one-third completed.

Still, some heartening progress is taking place. Baltimore is digging its first subway, an eight-mile system scheduled to open in late 1982. In April, Buffalo began construction of a 6.5-mile subway and elevated transit system, which is expected to be completed in 1984. Last month Miami broke ground for a 20.5-mile elevated rail system that will run north-south through the city. Late last month Atlanta put into operation the first 6.7-mile segment of MARIA (for Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority). In the next two years, 13.7 miles of the proposed 53-mile subway-and-elevated train network will be completed.

The big worry in Atlanta: What happens next? So far, the city has received more federal cash per capita for transit construction than any other U.S. urban area, but UMTA has not made any substantial commitments for funds after 1981. MARTA'S advocates are especially fearful, since the Federal Highway Administration plans to widen the expressways next to one main route of the proposed MARTA line. Unless MARTA can grow into a full-fledged network of interlocking routes, it will end up an uneconomic and inconvenient half measure that hould not have been started in the first place.

The nation's two other relatively new subway-and-elevated train systems are having mixed results. Ridership has purted 15% in the past year on San Francisco-Oakland's seven-year-old BART system (for Bay Area Rapid Transit), but it las been able to handle the crowds efficiently. Washington's newer Metro has coped as best it could but still has too few cars to accommodate the mobs. Even before they leave the first station, trains often have standing room only. Metro also is ridden with bugs: brake defects have forced cars to be withdrawn from service, causing a shortage of rolling stock, and the automatic ticket dispensers at the stations are often out of order.

To deal with the crowds, many cities are improvising. Dallas has started the Hop-a-Bus shuttle. Painted pink and adorned with bunny face and wiggling ears to attract attention, buses cruise downtown Dallas for the low fare of only 10-c-; on other Dallas routes, fares are 60-c- to 95.

Seattle is working with big employers to tailor its bus routes to pick up more riders. Like many other medium-size communities. Hartford, Conn., is emphasizing a park-and-ride system whereby auto drivers leave their cars at outlying lots and take buses into the city. Many of the buses are wide, comfortable models that have the ability to "kneel" as they stop; a mechanism can lower the front end of the bus almost to ground level for easier entry for everyone.

The drive to start or upgrade mass transit has been impeded by continuing uncertainty. Many mayors and city council members remain reluctant to appropriate big sums for fear that riders will return to their autos as soon as gasoline is plentiful again. To a degree, the concern is justified because the increase in mass transit riders tapered off after the 1973-74 gasoline crisis.

Yet the present energy squeeze is more permanent. Gasoline supplies probably will remain erratic, and certainly will remain expensive, as worldwide demand outpaces OPEC production. Thus the creation and improvement of mass transit deserves to be a major U.S. priority.

A the U.S. attempts to remedy the transit situation, there should be a burden sharing between local and federal governments. Local transit authorities should carry the operating costs. But even if they are heavily traveled, transit systems will not pay for themselves. At present, fares meet an average of only 48% of operating expenses. Therefore, communities will have to find ways to raise money in order to keep the systems running. A local tax on businesses might be feasible in some cities, since merchants and employers alike benefit if customers and workers can travel cheaply, comfortably and fairly quickly to store, office or plant. Since operating costs continue to rise, fares may have to go up slightly. However, big increases should be avoided because they scare away passengers.

The gigantic costs of rebuilding a transit system, or in many cases starting from scratch, can at present be carried only by the Federal Government. Washington will spend $3.3 billion on mass transit this year, but the crunch of '79 has shown that this sum is insufficient to cope with rapidly rising demands. Most transportation experts reckon that at least an extra $1 billion is needed. If inflation continues to run in double digits, the increase may have to be $ 1.5 billion or more.

To underscore its long-term commitment, the Federal Government also might set up a mass transit fund, similar to the highway fund, to finance long-term projects. With that tangible proof that Washington is serious about mass transit, manufacturers would be more willing to make the huge outlays necessary for starting up or expanding production of buses, subway cars and trolleys.

The benefits from a rebirth of mass transit would be great. Daily, the U.S. would save hundreds of thousands of barrels of petroleum. Equally important, the cities would be unclogged, and the environment would be freed from the soot and hoots of millions of autos crawling slowly to destinations that mass transit could reach more speedily and economically. qed

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so viewer discretion is required.