Imagine moving to a new location to start over and being instantly isolated. According to USAToday, 40 million Americans can experience this by moving each year (Sauter, 2018). Two years ago, I was part of this 40 million people. I moved from my home in the winter tundra of Minneapolis to the sunshine of Los Angeles.
Unfortunately for me, I was forced to give up the car that I had owned for the last 12 years. This has forced me to explore public transportation far more than I ever thought I would. Living in the Twin Cities, the last 12 years, my experiences with public transit were pretty limited. I do remember each instance when I would use it. Occasions would arise when my car would be in the shop or if I saw that the light rail would be more convenient for an event I would use it. However, more often than not, and with the cold weather, I relied on my car to go from point A to point B.
Still, upon arriving in Los Angeles and observing traffic, I have wondered why people drive when public transportation could be easier. The following paper discusses why people decline to ride public transportation. Reasons and topics will include the history of rail lines, the formation of communities, situational factors, an analysis of social media trends, studies of racial stigma and harassment, and miscommunication. Books, journals, and articles will be used to investigate why public transportation is not a more used commodity. Understanding society’s view of public transit can allow transportation planners to explore how to soothe these worries and showcase the societal benefit of riding public transit.
Public Transportation History
Tracing decisions not to ride public transportation begins with the decline of the railroad, the emergence of the automobile, and government-sponsored sprawl (Ross, 2014). Before the introduction of the automobile, the rail system in the United States had been successful. The first commercial rail system was established west of Baltimore in 1830 and was called the Baltimore and Ohio railroad (The Hutchinson Unabridged Encyclopedia with Atlas and Weather Guide, 2016). Observing the success of this railroad caused banks to overestimate railroads. These banks invested in other railroads with little return on investment. This helped cause the Panic of 1873(Ross, 2014). This panic produced a result in which railroads were never the same. The lead bank investor was that of Jay Cooke and Company. Unfortunately, Jay Cooke & Co overextended itself and offered risky loans based on overvalued real estate (Furstenberg, 2011). When this bank collapsed so did the railroads. By 1876 over half of the nation’s railroads declared bankruptcy and they never got back to producing as they did before.
Rosebeth Kanter states that “trust-busting, bankruptcies, nationalizations, and then the ascendance of other forms of transportation in the mid-twentieth century pushed rail to the periphery, its tracks on the wrong side of history” (Kanter, 2016). The rail system never recovered from this panic. New Deal programs of FDR had not been invented to help rail systems recover from this collapse. Instead of the rail system rebounding, people turned to cars.
The foundation of the model of the car driven today began with Henry Ford’s introduction of the Model T in 1908(Ross, 2014). Ford produced this model car so that the masses could have a mode of transportation.
Creating this vehicle changed the rudiments for how communities formed in the United States. Highways started to spring up all over the United States. Initially, highways were built for racing and pleasure driving by wealthy estate owners (Ross, 2014). However, the accessibility of the automobile made building highways more of a public service act performed by the federal government.
People could now travel and do more things. Restrictions of living in the cities no longer applied. This was especially true with the conclusions of both World Wars. As car access grew, people began to migrate out of the inner cities (Ross, 2014). Sadly, the rail system began to trend further and further downward.
The creation of highways also supplied possible escape routes from invasion in case war broke out in the United States(Ross, 2014). Emphasis on highways and emerging aviation systems also meant less investment in the rail system and this infrastructure soon fell behind other developed countries. (Ross, 2014). This laid the foundation of how cities formed. FDR’s New Deal reforms created far broader housing markets. World War II also established a society in which people had worked long hours during the work. Broader housing markets created more options for returning GIs. These veterans wanted homes more space for their families. Cities tended to be cramped, so GI's started to migrate outside the city to form suburbs (Ross, 2014). These new areas would provide safety and personal space that families desired.
Emerging auto companies encouraged the migration and urban sprawl that took place between 1945 and 1955. The benefit of people living outside the city enabled these auto companies to promote their vehicles. People could drive on these roads out of the city and to other places using the auto industry's cars and trucks over other forms of transportation. Advancements in “auto speed and safety, plus increased personal wealth thanks to the postwar economic boom, helped cars and trucks steal shares that the railroads would have received” (Kanter, 2016). Highways still have this power and have continued to advance on an unprecedented rate. Investment in newer and better technology has enabled cars to continue to evolve. These vehicles are being built to go further. Rail systems, on the other hand, continue to have to deal with lack of investment from communities and government. History has impacted rail systems ability to hold ridership, but situational factors today also play a significant role in detracting people from riding public transportation.
Situational Factors
People rely on the mode of transportation that they have used for years and years. That mode is driving. It is about “situational factors” as it relates to the method of travel (Walker, 2017). Situational factors enable transportation agencies to understand people’s preferences. The unknown frightens people. This stigma prevents people from trying anything new. Observing mass transit under this lens reinforces the view that mass transit can be misunderstood.
The ability to control certain factors exist when owning an automobile. For example, people who drive can control when they leave or arrive at specific locations. Concerns of arrival and departure can affect people’s livelihood. For instance, if someone is supposed to arrive at work or an appointment on time, relying on mass transit can be concerning. These concerns are typically known as spatiotemporal factors in service quality (Schweitzer, 2014). Examples of spatiotemporal factors include factors like service area, service span, in-vehicle time, waiting time, headways, transit corridors, service capture areas, and high frequencies.
Public transportation covers a variety of service areas. Typically, riders need to know where these service areas are located in order to understand where they are going for work or leisure. It is the understanding of the area that enables riders to know whether they want to make a trip. Melinda Morang addresses this idea by stating that “understanding who, what, and where” is the foundation for understanding the transit system in place” (Morang, 2016). These questions are vital to address before riders begin their ride.
Focusing on service span is something that can determine whether people ride transit. Service span describes the hours of the day when transit companies offer service (Schweitzer, 2014). Individual companies might offer services that do not address people’s needs. This can create a situation in which people elect not to ride public transportation. Different time elements exist, and these factors might not coincide with when people need to arrive and depart from work or leisure activities.
The next crucial thing to focus on is in-vehicle time and waiting time. In-vehicle time is defined as time spent riding public transit while waiting time refers to the time patrons spend at a stop waiting for service (Schweitzer, 2014). Riders of public transportation know that mass transit can fall behind schedule. Falling behind schedule can cause riders to become impatient with the transit system. They do not like being delayed on board due to backed up transit vehicles or long waits at transfer stops, or over overcrowding on buses or trains (TransLoc Marketing, 2013). These issues are conduits to riders hating transportation and perceiving it as inconvenient. Standing on a crowded train or bus can be uncomfortable. Imagine having to stand for 45 minutes on a train to arrive at work. Most riders are not happy about this concept. Conditions of falling behind schedule occur and frustrate riders because this issue is not something that they can control.
Because it is mass transit, people have to account for other people’s schedules. Certain days might make the bus or light rail more crowded than other days. Longer wait times might occur because the time it takes public transit to load or unload patrons.
Every person who rides public transportation has a different destination. Some stops will also be more popular than other stop locations. The popularity of these stops can harm a transit agency’s schedule. It can make a bus fall way ahead or way behind. If a bus is ahead of schedule, they might be forced to stop for a few minutes or to drive more conservatively. When bus drivers start driving more conservatively, they slow down for yellow lights to try to remain on schedule. Conservative driving and stopping to make up time will cause patrons of the service to grow annoyed. The riders are at the peril of the drivers and other riders that ride the system. Consequences of these actions can mean that patrons might be late for work and social events.
Employers emphasize punctuality to their employees, and many do not accept tardiness. Tardiness can negatively affect a company’s bottom line and “influence the productivity of other team members” (Kline, 2018). These factors matter when considering how employees arrive to work. If a company relies on an employee that much, the anxiety of waiting for public transportation to arrive at work can be problematic. This does not even begin to account for the fact that people who ride public transportation have to know when the bus or trains might arrive to pick them up and take these riders to work.
Frequent riders of public transportation know that sinking feeling when the bus or train is pulling away from a stop, and the potential rider is just feet away. This circumstance establishes the necessity of being at a stop on time. If a person misses a train or bus, the frequencies of headways or the time between buses or trains can be very frustrating. It also becomes a bit of a frustrating issue if the next train or bus arrives late. These issues influenced the TransitCenter to conduct a study about the “On Time Performance metric” of various transit agencies in the United States. Their results are listed in the graph below
The main criteria of this graph consist of on-time being 1 minute early or 4 minutes late (TransitCenter, 2018). It is a basic graph to observe because it indicates how often mass transit can fall behind schedule or stay current.
The last situational factor that might detour people from riding public transportation consists of the number of trips taken to arrive at work each day. Trips are defined as only one means of transportation mode. For instance, a walk to the bus or light rail station is one trip. Once that light rail or bus leaves the station that is the 2nd trip. Taking several trips to arrive at work or another destination can produce some anxiety. This anxiety is from having to link the trips together to arrive at a destination on-time. If a patron participates in multiple trips a day, they are suddenly spending more time traveling than they would prefer. People become annoyed by this prospect. If they lack adequate transportation, they might end up moving closer to their routine destination. Driving one trip is a lot easier than making several trips. The driver is reliant upon themselves as opposed to others.
Negative situational service factors do not just influence potential public transportation riders. Personal experiences, attitudes, word of mouth, and social media can also persuade people not to ride public transportation.
Personal Views, Experiences, and Social Media
Birthdays outline childhood development. These birthdays symbolize growing independence. None is more accurate than the ages when individuals in the United States learn how to drive a car. People view this as a step towards independence. This independence also represents a status symbol. These beliefs stick around. For example, Millennial, Jacqueline Carr, captured this idea by expressing to the LA. Times “I felt like I was too good for the bus. There’s a social and a construction around that if you take the bus, you take it because you do not have money” (Hess, 2012). Unfortunately, rightly or wrongly, this perception is somewhat accurate. Cities are built to accommodate cars, as discussed earlier in this paper. Jacqueline’s view also shows someone who had a car but ran into difficult times.
The question of choice and captive riders arises. Choice riders are riders of public transportation who have the choice to ride that form of public transportation or to drive cars. Captive riders, on the other hand, do not have a choice in regard to ridership. They rely on public transportation to get around. Racism goes conjointly with this sentiment. When observing public transportation are 92 percent black with a median household income that is $12,000(Hess, 2012).
Historical ramifications have also reinforced the idea that more impoverished black people ride public transportation. Plessy v. Ferguson reflects this attitude. Blacks and whites were separated by cars on railways in this case. (History.com Editors, 2018). Despite it being 2018, racial stigmas about public transportation still feel like Jim Crow times. Examples of this include a bus line that was introduced in Tempe AZ, in which neighbors of the line complained that it would attract serial killers and child rapists. Also: "bums," "drunks," and "Mexicans," whom the commentators feared would soon be "drinking out of our water hoses."(Hess, 2012). This indicates a perception that public transportation has to fight against every day.
The issue of homelessness has exponentially gotten worse. Many homeless people have started to rely on metro transportation systems as safe havens from inclement weather and as a place to sleep. (Nelson, 2018). They can be seen under blankets at each stop during the early mornings or late at night as indicated by the picture below from the LA Times
Many homeless people have encountered such turmoil in their lives that it has left them unhinged. Passengers of the metro system often worry about encountering “chronic addictions, illness, and misery say they feel they can do little to help, and struggle to stay empathetic when they encounter trash and human waste on platforms, urine in train cars, and harassment from riders who are mentally ill. (Nelson, 2018).
These concerns are justified. Faulting passengers for choosing not to ride public transportation when they encounter these ordeals is imprudent. Experiencing aggressive homelessness damages a person’s desire to ride public transportation. (Nelson, 2018). Because people are so connected, it also means that people can express their dissatisfaction of an experience on public transportation. This can cause a stigma to form about public transportation that is difficult circumvent.
Personal views on public transportation can also impact whether people choose to ride public transit. We live in a culture where people rely on reviews online to decide whether to dine at a restaurant. An opinion can be established based on reading these reviews. Transportation is no different. People can gather review of public transit online. Professor, Lisa Schweitzer studied these reviews. Her goal was to address the following questions
Do social media users describe transit planning, management, and services in a positive or negative manner?
Do differences in social media interactions influence the tone of the discussion surrounding agency services, planning, and public management on social media?
If so, should planners get more actively involved in social media to foster positive messages about public transit services and maintain civil dialog about patrons?
To accomplish her study, Lisa analyzed and texted mined over 64,000 comments on twitter about public transportation. This can indicate how much social media can impact influences on attitudes and choice behaviors as it relates to ridership (Schweitzer, 2014). Schweitzer discovered that “many tweets contain racial, sexist, and other slurs directed at other transit patrons. These slurs comprise a large share of all the negative comments addressing public transportation” (Schweitzer, 2014).
A single woman rides the EXPO Line, and a person accosts her. She instructs the rest of the patrons to push a button that alerts Metro Security. Metro Security arrives and interviews her at the next stop. This is an example of Lisa’s study.
The question becomes whether the woman, the man or other patrons would tweet about this circumstance taking place and the choice of words they express on social media. Negative experiences such as these shine a light on the fact that everyone has different experiences on public transportation. Harassment plays a significant role in whether people opt to ride public transportation. Did this woman ride the Expo Line again? How do riders, patrons, her friends, react to this circumstance? Undoubtedly, this woman expressed these frustrations to her family or friends. Harassment like this happens regularly. Evidence of this appears in the tweets taken from the Washington Post below
Security concerns revolving around public transportation need solutions. Many women feel unsafe riding public transportation or waiting for the bus or train late at night. According to Holly Kearl, founder of Stop Street Harassment, women will choose transportation options that are less convenient, more costly, or even change their occupation in order to feel safer” (Paddison, 2017). Holly’s point provides evidence that some women refuse to ride public transportation.
Furthermore, MeToo’s impact on transportation show that “Buses, trains, and stations involve public spaces that feel both vast, intimate, where strangers are plentiful, but the usual expectations for personal space can vanish” (Powers, 2017). If someone is new to a city and he or she try public transit for the first time, and these events occur, it can traumatize his or her view of transportation forever. According to a 2007 survey of New York City subway users, 63 percent of respondents said they had been sexually harassed on the subway, and 51 percent said they were sometimes or frequently treated with sexual assault or harassment” (Powers, 2017).
The percentages in this survey might be larger than the numbers depicted when considering how the MeToo movement has grown compared to 2007. Still, it provides insight into why women might choose to avoid riding public transportation. Methods to address these issues also lack effective communication. Citizens need to feel comfortable riding and have knowledge of various public transportation policies.
Communication
Lisa Schweitzer’s study also shows that “ people discuss the agency and its services more negatively when agencies blast information addressing these kind of issues rather than interacting with individuals in a two-way, conversational tone “(Schweitzer, 2014). Miscommunication of public transportation occurs frequently.
Contacting metro transportation security like the woman did above can be something that is not communicated. Public transportation’s inability to communicate issues like these and many of their policies can be confusing (Hess, 2012).
Confusion of these policies can scare away possible riders of public transportation. For example, inaccuracies in arrival and departure times in signage can signify ineffective communication. Many areas on a route can lack signs that direct passenger which train or bus to board. Imagine climbing onto one of these systems to go Santa Monica but ending up in Long Beach instead.
Everyday riders might also experience frustration with the changes that occur in fares without a rider’s knowledge. Changes in fares impact metro riders’ trip decisions and the revenue of the metro operation company. (Wang, Li, & Chen, 2014). Response to these changes in fares can vary greatly. For example, if a fare increases, some customers might address it by choosing different modes of transport. Other patrons might stomach the price increase and continue to ride the metro. However, the case may be, many riders of public transit will feel that transportation is a public good and therefore, should maintain a sort of subsidy for transit (Levinson & King, 2013). The issue with raising the fare is that it can provide excludability. Transit helps the disadvantaged. Raising a fare goes against this idea. If someone pays monthly and relies on this public service, the change in fare might surprise them. It is challenging to inform customers of a fare change. Indeed, when boarding buses, the actual amount tendered isn’t communicated well.
Collection of public transportation fares fund, repair, and keep maintenance of public transit (Levinson & King, 2013). This creates a dichotomy of issues. On the one hand, this system is reliant on people to fund this system, while on the other, those same people are the same disadvantaged that the system is trying to aid. Incentivizing people to help pay for the system becomes difficult when people do not see an initial benefit of the current public transportation system.
Motivating civilians to ride public transportation means “we should do what we can to encourage utilization, and play on the idea that people dislike paying out-of-pocket, which discourages use, but are happy to pay for ‘unlimited services’ so they don’t have to think about every transactional cost” (Levinson and King, 2013). Creating incentives can allow public transportation to flourish. Specific ideas they have used include the variety of partnerships they have with universities.
Students of USC and other universities often have a deal with transit agencies. These agreements include an agreement that allows students to ride public transportation at a fixed discounted rate. Students usually pay at the beginning of the semester, and they receive of the benefit of riding public transit all spring or fall semester that they are in school. This incentive enables students to travel more effectively and not have to worry about parking bringing their vehicle to school or having to pay for parking. Exploring other possible incentives can help public transportation too. The primary goal should address ways so that patrons do not pay out of pocket but also can enjoy public transportation benefits.
Conclusion
Public transportation should focus on creating better connectivity and health. Our current communities have such a negative impact on health because roads are built everywhere for cars. Walkscores of these communities reach low marks and movement in some areas is challenging because of heavy traffic. Responsible urban planners need to address these issues by strengthening urban transit and address what they are attempting to achieve with public transportation.
Public transportation receives backlash from history, logistics, social media, racial discrimination, harassment history, and other factors. Overcoming these issues is a tall order, but public transportation remains a fabric of cities. However, some possible solutions do exist. Building more efficient communities means “... rethinking and reinventing rail transportation, while improving the infrastructure that supports it ” (Kanter, 2016). Better infrastructure and public transportation systems can eliminate some of the factors that might detour possible ridership.
Planners, entrepreneurs, inventors, and investors need to continue to explore new methods of creating a better transportation system (Kanter, 2016). Improvements in transportation can occur at any time. For instance, the high-speed rail has seen numerous improvements. It often seems limited to other parts of the world. However, the Texas Bullet is an example of some public transit options that continue to evolve.
This train that will travel between Dallas and Houston at a speed of 200 miles per hour and is scheduled to open in 2020. Seeing this train open, gives hope to other uses of public transportation. Rosabeth Kanter suggests planners should
“ situate rail in a broader transportation system that includes connections across modes of transportation, so that we could indeed get one ticket and barcode for a trip by plane and train—assuming we figure out how to make the physical connections, which should also be a priority. And potential visionaries need places to learn the industry. ”(Kanter, 2016). Creating transportation systems that harmonize and work together establish a stronger community which all modes are connected creates harmony. Kanter’s central belief is that learning about how these modes of transportation can work together begins at an early age. Creating an exposure would help benefit these areas of transportation.
Public and private partnerships could significantly benefit transportation. These partnerships could finance improvements for numerous transportation systems (Poole,2018). Providing this kind of funding would significantly enhance safety and eliminate harassment and other stigmas of transit. However, initially, the concept should be built around understanding how to help low-income people go to work and have access to adequate health resources. Initial steps should include adding more social workers at platforms that are experiencing severe homeless issues. (Nelson, 2018).
Accomplishing these steps allows focus to shift towards addressing rural public transportation as well. Creating better bus lanes, better places for walking and establishing more service areas can enable public transportation to flourish. Urban planning should mean riding the world of urban isolation and establishing meaningful connections.
Sources
www.history.com/topics/black-history/plessy-v-ferguson.
Baltimore and Ohio Railroad. (2018). In Helicon (Ed.), The Hutchinson unabridged encyclopedia with atlas and weather guide. Abington, UK: Helicon. Retrieved from https://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://search.credoreference.com/content/entry/heliconhe/baltimore_and_ohio_railroad/0?institutionId=887
Cronk, Imran. When You Don't Have a Ride to the Doctor's Office. 17 Aug. 2015, www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/08/the-transportation-barrier/399728/.
Expand Public Transportation Systems and Offer Incentives. 24 Aug. 2015, www.transportation.gov/mission/health/Expand-Public-Transportation-Systems-and-Offer-Incentives.
Furstenberg, Francois. What History Teaches Us about the Welfare State. 1 July 2011, www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/what-history-teaches-us-about-the-welfare-state/2011/07/01/AGGfhFuH_story.html?utm_term=.ca46c53ee35a&wprss=rss_opinions.
Giuliano, Genevieve, and Susan Hanson. The Geography of Urban Transportation. The Guilford Press, 2017.
Here's How The Government Should Be Subsidizing Public Transit. 22 Apr. 2013, www.businessinsider.com/the-right-way-to-subsidize-public-transit-2013-4.
Hess, Amanda. Race, Class, and the Stigma of Riding the Bus in America. 15 May 2014, www.citylab.com/solutions/2012/07/race-class-and-stigma-riding-bus-america/2510/.
Jaffe, Eric, and CityLab. How to Keep Buses From Bunching. 12 Mar. 2012, www.citylab.com/transportation/2012/03/how-keep-buses-bunching/1457/.
Kanter, Rosabeth Moss. Move: How to Rebuild and Reinvent Americas Infrastructure. W. W. Norton & Company, 2016.
Kline, Kenny. It's Staggering How Much Tardiness Costs the American Economy Each Year. 23 Jan. 2018, www.inc.com/kenny-kline/tardiness-costs-american-economy-a-shocking-amount-of-money-each-year.html.
Mcwilliams, J. E., & McWilliams, J. E. (2011). Panic of 1873. In C. L. Clark (Ed.), The American economy: a historical encyclopedia (2nd ed.). Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO. Retrieved from https://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://search.credoreference.com/content/entry/abcamerecon/panic_of_1873/0?institutionId=887
Nelson, Laura J. As Waves of Homeless Descend onto Trains, L.A. Tries a New Strategy: Social Workers on the Subway. 6 Apr. 2018, www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-metro-homeless-20180406-htmlstory.html.
Paddison, Laura. Women Around The World Are Harassed And Abused On Public Transportation. 6 Dec. 2017, www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/women-public-transportation-harassment_us_59e88cfee4b0d0e4fe6d8202.
Powers, Martine. Why the #MeToo Movement Is a Public Transportation Issue. 20 Oct. 2017, www.washingtonpost.com/news/dr-gridlock/wp/2017/10/20/why-the-metoo-movement-is-a-public-transportation-issue/?utm_term=.d0bd7eea0fd8.
Poole, Robert. Rethinking America’s Highways: A 21st-Century Vision for Better Infrastructure. University of Chicago Press, 2018.
Rosenberg, Eli. Commute Made You Late Again? Get a Note From Your Train. 5 Apr. 2017, www.nytimes.com/2017/04/05/nyregion/commute-made-you-late-again-get-a-note-from-your-train.html.
Ross, Benjamin. Dead End: Suburban Sprawl and the Rebirth of American Urbanism. Oxford University Press, 2016.
Schweitzer, Lisa. “Planning and Social Media: A Case Study of Public Transit and Stigma on Twitter.” Journal of the American Planning Association, vol. 80, no. 3, Mar. 2014, pp. 218–238., doi:10.1080/01944363.2014.980439.
Texas Central Lands $300 Million Loan for Dallas-to-Houston Bullet Train Project. 13 Sept. 2018, www.dallasnews.com/news/transportation/2018/09/13/texas-central-lands-300-million-loanfor-dallas-houston-bullet-train-project.
The "Choice" vs. "Captive" Transit Rider Dichotomy Is All Wrong. 13 July 2016, usa.streetsblog.org/2016/07/12/the-choice-vs-captive-transit-rider-dichotomy-is-all-wrong/.
Walker, Jarrett. Why We Should Stop Talking About 'Bus Stigma'. 17 July 2012, www.citylab.com/transportation/2012/07/why-we-should-stop-talking-about-bus-stigma/2601/.
Wang, Zi-Jia, et al. “Impact Evaluation of a Mass Transit Fare Change on Demand and Revenue Utilizing Smart Card Data.” Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, vol. 77, 2015, pp. 213–224., doi:10.1016/j.tra.2015.04.018.
Who Does My Public Transit System Serve?www.esri.com/arcgis-blog/products/network-analyst/transportation/who-does-my-public-transit-system-serve/.
Your Bus Is On Time. What Does That Even Mean?27 Aug. 2018, transitcenter.org/2018/08/27/bus-time-even-mean/.