Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
2. IMMOBILITY ISSUES WHO ARE THE TRANSPORTATION DISADVANTAGED? Overall mobility has improved for the average American. Although the U.S. total population grew by only 4Yo between 1983 and 1990, total travel, measured by person trips, increased by 6% over the same period. Thus, mobility is increasing at a much higher rate than population.~1) While overall mobility of the population has improved, a significant segment of the population is moderately or severely immobile. This group is defined as the trar~sportation disacivantagec! throughout this research. The transportation disadvantaged are those people whose range of travel alternatives is limited, especially in the availability of easy-to-use and inexpensive options for trip-making. Examples include persons who are young, elderly, poor, with disabilities, or without automobiles. 1. Individuals Without Access to Automobiles In the auto-dominated American society, a primary factor for immobility is lack of access to an automobile. In 1990, 9.2% of American households did not have an automobile. The typical zero-vehicle household has no one in the labor force (either employed or searching for work), has a lower than average income, and lives in the central part of a large urban area, according to an analysis of the 1990 Nationwide Personal Transportation Survey. (2) One measure of mobility is the average number of trips per day made by an individual. During the Nationwide Personal Transportation Survey, 46% of the households without an automobile took no trips, compared to 21% of the general population. Almost half of those without an automobile are persons 65 years or older, and of these, 81% are women. Those between ages 65-74 with no automobile make about 1.34 trips per day, compared to 2.32 trips for individuals of the same age with an automobile. 2. Demographic Factors Affecting Mobility Income, disabilities, gender, ethnicity, and education are all factors affecting mobility. For example, individuals with incomes below $10,000 make about one trio per daY less than individuals with incomes over $40,000 per year. Non , ~ · ~ ~ ~ ~ -~ ~ · 1 ~ ~ 1_ ~ · __( ·~ ·~ · _ _ ImN disabled persons make over 5~)U/o more trips than persons wan c~lsaollltles. ail Gender also plays an important role in mobility. Women, in general, make slightly more trips per day than men. However ~~~ ^ ^ 2-l Biro ot tu~-t~me working mothers
- - - ~ trips. As education level increases, the average member of person trips per day increases for both those without an automobile and those with an automobile. and almost 60% of part-time working mothers have non-traditional work hours. This reduces their ability to join carpools or find appropriately-scheduled transit options. (4) Furthermore, almost 70% of adults living in households without automobiles are women. According to the 1990 Nationwide Personal Transportation Survey, there is a relationship between ethnicity and travel. Nearly 40% of central city African- American households were without access to an automobile, compared to fewer than one out of five white central city households. Nonetheless, African-Americans have the least immobility stemming from absence of a vehicle, partly because of a higher overall use of public transit: Their rate of transit use is more than twice as high as whites'.~5) Education probably has the strongest impact on the cronensitv to make . .. . . - According to an analysis by Dr. Charles Lave and Richard Crepeau, "increased education produces increased income, which in turn produces more travel. The data indicates that a change in education produces a greater overall effect on trip rates than the change in income." (6) 3. Availability of Public Transportation If a household does not own an automobile but has reliable, affordable, and convenient public transportation, then mobility levels are retained. However, almost four in ten American households do not have public transportation available within two miles. This is most pronounced in non-urbanized areas, where only 20.2% have public transportation within two miles of their houses. By contrast, in central cities almost 83% of the households have public transportation available, and trip-making is greatly increased. For example, in areas with a million or more in population, people without automobiles but with access to subways or elevated rail lines took almost 30% more trips per household than those living in large urban areas without these public transportation modes. KEY BARRIERS TO IMPROVING MOBILITY The following discussion highlights several major themes on the causes and key barriers to countering the economic, social, and personal costs of immobility. These barriers can be characterized by a lack of: Access to job opportunities for inner-city residents. Basic services in the inner city. 2-2
Rural and small town transit services funding. Public safety measures to combat crime and fear of crime. Geography and Economics of Opportunity Job Opportunities for Inner-CitY Residents Changing land use patterns and resulting economic development locations have had a profound impact on employment opportunities for residents of the inner city. During the past 40 years, nearly two out of every three new jobs have been created in the suburbs of metropolitan areas, and most of the new jobs are not accessible by public transportation.~7) The pace of suburban employment growth during the 1980s was phenomenal. In 1980, 57% of all office space was located in urban centers and 43% in suburbs. By 1986, the situation had reversed itself with 60% of the jobs in suburbs compared to 40% in cities. A key factor in this growth is that many films in the financial/insurance/real estate (FIRE) sectors, one of the ,, . · ~ . . · ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ · 1 1 1 _ _1_ _ ~ _ _ __ 1 nations fastest growing, nave opted tor tne suouros, moving one oacK oInce ana clerical workers to branch facilities. Low land prices and the availability of pools of (primarily female) second wage-earners have been the primary lures attracting FIRE firms to the fringes.~8) Philadelphia, which was the location of one of the case studies for this research, illustrates the impact of the suburbanization of jobs. Between 1982 and 1992, 163,000 new service jobs and 58,000 retail jobs were created. Approximately 87% of the new service jobs and 97% of new retail jobs opened outside of Philadelphia. Philadelphia is following a nationwide trend of increased reverse commuting. Between 1980 and 1990, there was a 43.7% increase in journey to work trips between Philadelphia and the suburbs. The Philadelphia experience mirrors a national trend of increased reverse commuting and a decline in the share of transit use for those trips. From 1970 to l99O, the number of work trips from central cities to suburban rings increased by 25%; from 1970 to 1990, the number of work trips by transit declined by 33%.~9) For many inner-city residents, there are fewer employment opportunities closer to home. According to some observers, the inner-city job market is changing to a highly skilled, predominantly white collar market for which many inner-city poor lack the necessary skills to obtain gainful employment. The number of white- collar jobs generated have failed to replace the loss of blue-collar jobs in the city. The white collar jobs in the inner city are accessible by public transportation, but many of the inner-city poor are not qualified for them. 2-3
The disparity of opportunities between the inner city and suburbs is documented in a study contrasting geographical and socioeconomic indicators between the central cities and suburbs in eight of the largest metropolitan areas plus four additional metropolitan areas. Mark Alan Hughes found that in 7 of 12 metropolitan areas, population growth in the central cities has declined between 1980 and 1990. Population suburbanization had gone so far that suburban residents outnumbered city residents in all 12 of the metropolitan areas. Among his other key findings were: (10) . A significant disparity of poverty rates exists in cities and suburbs. Six percent of the residents in suburbs versus 28% of residents in the central city are below the poverty level in Detroit. In general there is less disparity as you go West and South. In Los Angeles, 10% of the suburban population and 18% in the central city live in poverty. · Central cities remain disproportionately African-American compared to the general population. In all 12 metropolitan areas, the percentage of central city population that was African-American was at least twice as high as the suburban percentage, and in half of them it was at least four times as high. In Milwaukee, 26.9% of City residents are African- American compared to 0.~% in the suburbs. In six of the eight largest metropolitan areas, most if not all job growth during the 19SOs was located in the suburbs. The suburbs appear to be the engines of employment growth in these metropolitan areas. In sum, there is an extreme pattern in these metropolitan areas: poverty and joblessness are concentrated in formerly central cities while prosperity and job growth are Reconcentrating toward the metropolitan periphery. In many metropolitan areas, jobs in the cities are no longer around the corner. Jobs are over the horizon (emphasis added). Most public transportation systems were developed to converge in central business districts (CBD). Access and headways are designed, in general, to encourage the commute to the CBD. The widely dispersed settIement patterns of the suburban office park are a difficult market to serve. There has been a long history of attempts to provide reverse commute services. Overall, among the lessons learned is that reverse commute transportation services alone will not address the employment mismatch between the suburbs and inner-city residents. Transportation access is not the problem, but it is certainly part of the problem. The evidence points to declining transit access to suburban employment opportunities as a significant problem, particularly in those cities with the largest 2-4
numbers of transit dependent minorities. Steven Blake of the National Association of Regional Councils concludes that the data strongly suggests that in most metropolitan areas, "most jobs are beyond the reach of the transit dependent, among whom minorities are disproportionately represented." If transit service is available, it must be affordable and convenient. According to a number of stakeholders interviewed in the Los Angeles case study for this report, minimum wage jobs are available in the San Fernando Valley but are inaccessible to inner-city residents because the fare on the bus would cost too much to make it worthwhile to even take the job. For the new commuter rail services, it would cost $200 dollars a month to travel on Metrorail from San Bernardino to jobs in Los Angeles, a fare beyond the capability of most low income people. Efforts to Improve Basic Services Within Inner CitY Site visits to both Philadelphia and Los Angeles point to the lack of basic services, such as a grocery store, in many inner-city neighborhoods. Residents have to rely on more expensive convenience stores and spend a higher percentage of their low incomes on food. Both site visits revealed significant community efforts to improve basic services within the community. After the 1965 Watts riots in Los Angeles, local services, such as grocery stores and banks, left the community. Watts residents, who do not have supermarkets near their homes, must pay $2.70 to get to the grocery store and back on the bus. Consequently, residents often go to the local liquor stores with mini- marts, where they can pay $5.00 for a gallon of milk. The lack of basic services in the community has significant personal and social costs for residents. In a progressive effort to improve local services, a 500-member community cnurch in South Central Los Angeles is spearheading redevelopment plans for a shopping center with a major supermarket as the anchor tenant. According to the minister, residents are currently paying 30 to 50% more for their goods in the small minimarts that are available in the neighborhood. He said that church members often pay people with cars to go the market, because public transit service is unreliable and inconvenient. The minister pointed to two-hour headways for some routes and significant out of direction travel to an isolated transfer point, where riders fear being assaulted. '~Young males enrolled in a job training program cannot get to work on time because the bus service is infrequent," he said. The minister is currently working with the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA), The U.S. Housing and Urban Development, the City of Los Angeles Redevelopment Agency, California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), and the International Council of Shopping Centers to secure financing to support a 50,000 square foot national chain grocery store near the Harbor Freeway. 2-5
He has involved MTA and Caltrans to ensure appropriate access to the proposed grocery store. In West Philadelphia, the community is planning a major mixed-use intermodal transportation center at 52nd St. and Lancaster. One of the key objectives presented by community leaders is to attract a local grocery store and other basic services for local residents. Many of these services are only available outside West Philadelphia and require long journeys by residents. Almost 20 years ago, the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) discontinued stops on two different train lines at the 52nd St. station, reportedly due to crime concerns. The abandoned station is a major public eyesore to the community. There are currently 250 zone businesses ant! nearly 10,000 residents located in the vicinity of the former SEPTA rail station. AMTRAK train service runs through the site, but does not stop. Two bus routes and a light rail line provide good access to the site, but no bus shelters and little lighting discourage use, according to community members. Since January of 1993, a committee of business leaders and community residents have been meeting to devise a strategy to improve both public transportation and economic development in the area. Plans envision a major intermodal center with a new supermarket, shopping center, a few strip stores, and a parking garage as Dart of the master plan. Significant publicity and political . , fanfare for the demolition of the old abandoned station overpass is expected to draw continued external political support for the project. Improving public transportation services and attracting basic services go hand-to-hand, according to · - commum ;y orgamzers. Community members are hopeful that a successful intermodal transit center will provide momentum to local economic development in an adjacent business park. The Philadelphia Industrial Development Corporation now owns an adjacent 68-acre industrial park that was formerly an abandoned rail yard. The community ~ ~ ~ . . ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ - ~, ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ . has a tuture vision ot local cons tor local residents ot west rmla~elphla. The lack of services and reliable public transportation in the inner city has significant economic, social, and personal costs. Because public transportation is unreliable and basic services are not available locally, many residents buy old junker cars according to the Los Angeles minister interviewed for this research. Owners often do not have driver's licenses; and the cars are not smog checked, registered, or insured because of the high costs for residents who can barely find enough gas money. As a result, owners will leave the area and their job to avoid being arrested for unpaid tickets, he said. 2-6
Because employers want to know that employees will be able to get to work on time, they won't hire employees without driver's licenses. The minister contends that employers will not recruit from his area, because of its reputation for a labor pool without driver's licenses. His experience has shown that since may ~ . , ~ . ~ - ~ ~ J prospective employees no not nave a license or a car, they don't even try to find a job, because they believe they won't be hired. Deficient Rural and Small Town Transit Services Much of rural America remains unserved by public transit. According to the Community Transit Association of America (CTAA), 38~o of the nation's rural residents live in areas without any public transit and another 28% live in areas in which the service level is negligible. Providing public transit in rural areas is the responsibility of a network of 1,162 agencies funded under Section 18 of the Federal Transit Act. Their collective service area includes 53 million people, or six out of ten persons living in rural areas or small towns. The network provides 95 million trips a year. This is equivalent to less than TWO trips per capita in the service area, compared to 49 trips per capita in urban areas.~12) Interviews were held with six stakeholders in two rural empowerment zones and two locations with CTAA JobLinks grants. The Kentucky Highlands Empowerment Zone includes an 11-county area in southeastern Kentucky. The overall population is 266,000 with 32.5% of the residents having incomes below the poverty level. Despite the poverty, over 95% of households have at least one car. According to the Executive Director of a local economic development program, "If you cannot afford a car, you can't get to work." There is no public transportation in the area. Local residents either have a car or have a family member who has one. A key effort of the economic development program has been to invest in local credit minions which make low- or no-interest loans to residents who wish to purchase cars. For those without access to automobiles, a critical need is nonemergency transportation to medical appointments within southeastern Kentucky and to Louisville, which is three to four hours away by car. The Rio Grande Valley Empowerment Zone consists of portions of four counties with a total population of 29,900 over a 228-square mile area. Although population densities are very low, there is an intercity fixed-route service that provides minimal levels of service. During the strategic planning process for the empowerment zone, transportation was frequently cited by all participants in the process as a significant impediment to achieving an enhanced quality of life. Social service agencies have expressed concern over their inability to provide services to those most in need due to the lack of transportation. Residents have expressed similar frustration over their inability to access even the most basic community 2-7
facilities, such as grocery stores and medical facilities. Two primary objectives of the strategic plan are to: Enhance access to medical and social service providers. Provide residents with access to training and employment opportunities. To achieve these objectives, one of the empowerment subzones has set aside $200,000 for improved transportation services. The Rio Grande Empowerment ~ _ ~ . . ~ ~ ~ . ~ . . none Coerce Is currently acictress~ng policy Issues about how the funds should be spent. For example, . Although empowe~-~'ent zone funds could be utilized to provide transportation to job training, what transportation will be available when trainees are placed in a permanent job? If public transportation services are expanded with empowerment zone funds, where will the long term funds come from to continue the service? Inadequate Funding and Equity Issues Inadequate Funding Inadequate funding was identified as a key barrier to addressing immobility during the stakeholder interviews. In Philadelphia, at the time the site visit interviews were held, a 10% budget cut was about to take place. Significant concerns were expressed about future reductions in transit service levels and the impact that they may have on the transit dependent population. The Rio Grande Valley Empowerment Zone Corporation is reluctant to use Empowe~-~ent Zone funds as seed money because it is fearful that longer term operating assistance will not be available after the demonstration period is over. Federal Transit Administration staff who were interviewed said that a constraint on public funding and a failure to develop more diverse sources of funding is a primary barrier to improving mobility. Funding Equity With scarce financial resources, the investment of transportation dollars raises questions of policy priorities. A major policy issue raised during the interview process and literature review is: "Are the transportation disadvantaged receiving an equitable share of funding to address immobility issues?" Studies of the benefits and tax burdens of transit subsidy allocations among income classes have led to the following general conclusions: (13,14,15) 2-S
1. Overall, transit subsidization redistributes income from high-income to low-income classes, but it is not very effective in targeting benefits to the poor. 2. Long-distance, peak-hour, suburban trips are more heavily subsidized and have significantly higher income riders than their converse. 3. Of the three modes (bus, commuter rail, and raid rapid transit), buses transport the largest percentage of riders, transport the lowest income riders, and receive the least amount of capital subsidy. 4. The transit industry generates indirect benefits to the local, state, and national economy in terms of jobs created and business revenues from operating and capital investments. 5. Federal income and corporate taxes are progressive. State and local taxes, especially sales and property taxes, are regressive. (In 1981, the conclusion was that since more transit subsidy is generated at the federal level, the overall burden of transit taxation is progressively distributed.) When MTA in the Los Angeles area raised its fares recently, a lawsuit was brought against MTA by a legal defense fund representing bus drivers in the NAACP, indicating that the fare hike was inequitable and the impacts would fall , , 1 _ ·~ 1~ me ~ ·' ~ ~ · ~ .~ . _ _~ ~ . . . more nervy on the poor. Aloe lawsuit also claimed that M'l'A was investing more in railways, which the lawsuit argued serves predominantly the affluent suburbs, than it was in transportation for the poor. MTA is now sponsoring a mobility allowance program, which is trying to determine how to subsidize transportation equitably. In his article, "Discrimination in Mass Transit," J. PuIcher includes four recommendations for improving the equity of subsidy programs: (16) 1. Increase fares for commuter rail service. This would decrease the amount of subsidy needed for the more affluent riders. 2. Put a hold on construction of new multi-billion dollar rail transit systems which benefit the affluent. 3. Impose peak hour surcharges and distance-based fares on all transit modes. 4. Set up a program of discount transit passes for the poor and improve service in low-income neighborhoods. 2-9
Public Safety Crime and fear of crime is an important barrier to increased use of public transportation by many inner-city residents. The elderly open are fearful of walking to and waiting at the bus stop and riding with unruly passengers on the bus. In West Philadelphia crime was a significant factor in closing the 52nd St. station. Fear of crime was expressed by a representative of the Los Angeles Housing Authority, who runs a youth entrepreneur program. She is fearful of putting the students of her program, who are 16 to 25 years old, on public transit because one of her students was Jumped at a transfer point while participating in the program. She now transports the students through more costly door-to-door service. In general, public transit has a poor image in her community, in large part due to a fear of crime, she said. The MTA spends $6 million per year on security with 500 transit police officers. There are police officers on most light rail trains, according to an MTA representative, because lots of people can be protected on one train with one officer. Because there are not public resources to put an officer on even bus, security on buses is less than the security on the trains, and there is no security at most stops and stations. USING PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION TO ADDRESS THE BARRIERS TO MOBILITY Prior to 1960, little effort was devoted to alleviating the barriers to mobility described in the previous section. Persons who were poor, disabled or elderly were thought to benefit from existing transportation programs. In the 1960s and 1970s however, the civil rights movement brought greater political awareness of this segment of society. In urban transportation, as in other areas, government programs proliferated to meet the problems faced by the transportation disadvantaged. This section describes six significant public policy efforts to provide public transportation that addresses the economic, social, and Herman costs of immobility: Development of Public Transportation Reverse Commute Services Demand Responsive Services Fare Subsidy Programs Livable Communities Social Services Coordination 2-10
Empowerment Zone and Enterprise Communities (EZ/EC) The development of these public policies is discussed below, illustrated by specific examples from the case studies conducted for this research. Further examples are given in the Compendium in Chapter 6. Documentation of the six case studies can be found in Appendix A. Development of Public Transportation Services There are over 6,000 transit systems in the United States. About 2,250 operate bus service, 5,200 operate demand response service, and about 150 operate other modes. In 1995, 3.5 billion miles of service were operated, providing about 7.9 billion trips.~17) Today's network of bus, rail, and ferries provides an important mobility option for millions of people. The development and maintenance of core public transportation services, however, has been reliant on a number of public policy efforts to ensure that public transportation services remain a viable choice. The twentieth century has seen a significant transformation in public transportation service levels and in how transit agencies are organized and funded. . To the urban dweller of the first quarter of the twentieth century, transit was as pervasive a travel mode and sociological phenomenon as the automobile is today. The street railway system provided significant access to downtown areas for urban residents during their 6-day workweek, but also allowed the family a Sunday visit to amusement parks located at the end of the transit line.~18) As suburbanization and auto ownership increased, transit experienced a well-documented countervailing downward spiral: diversion of patronage to the automobile forced service reductions that further eroded patronage and revenue, necessitating fare increases and loss of ridership. During World War II, the public transportation service network and patronage reached its peak with over 20 billion annual passenger. Many historians argue that the decline in public transportation service really started in 1920s, and only the war provided an artificial boost to the transit industry. (19) An ~.~1;^ ~;l;~;^c! hater ~i~rmc!tir~o" their nilbli~ t.r~n.c:nort.~t.ion networks and . ray P"Lill~ "Vlll-V~=~ L'~-V^~ "-are race private operators became increasingly financially unstable, Congress began to debate the importance of maintaining a basic network of public transportation services in 1960. The first federal aid passed in 1961 authorized $50 million in low- interest loans and $25 million in demonstration projects. The first federal capital assistance was included in the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1974, while funds to defray operating expense were authorized by Congress in 1974. 2-11
Only a handful of cities provided municipal tax subsidies for the operation of transit systems in 1960.~20) David Jones points to an important matter of public policy development: "Federal initiative preceded local concern about the future of transit in most communities; indeed the congressional supporters of transit assistance argue that federal involvement was necessary to motivate and stimulate state and local action in an arena heretofore neglected."~21) As federal initiatives were undertaken to address urban problems in the 1960s and 1970s, maintenance of a viable public transportation network was supported as a means to address a number of societal goals, including the restoration of the economic vitality of cities, protecting the environment, conserving energy, easing the mobility of transit dependent persons, and providing inner-city residents with better access to jobs.~22) Many states and municipalities followed the federal initiatives with funding to support and maintain a viable public transportation network. After hitting a low in the 1970s, the infusion of public funding enabled the maintenance of core public transportation services, and patronage continued to rise slowly through 1990. While this basic network is widely available, and transit service has improved in many cities, Arthur Saltzman conclucles that "most passengers are still those who do not have easy access to an automobile and are thus captive to the transit system".~23) Thus, public policy efforts to maintain a basic public transportation network have provided an important mobility option for the transportation disadvantaged. The importance of core transportation services and the impact on riders when the services are reduced was the subject of one of the case studies for this research. AC Transit Service Reductions At the end of its 1994-95 fiscal year, the Alameda-Contra Costa (AC Transit District, headquartered in Oakland, California, had a $2.3 million shortfall out of a total budget of $144,464,000 and faced an even larger deficit for the following fiscal year. To address this financial crisis, the District implemented an If% reduction in service between December, 1995 anct June, 1996. Before implementing the service reductions, AC Transit attempted to reduce its internal costs and pursue grants and private-sector partnerships. In May, 1995, the District also adopted a fare increase, raising the cash fare from $~.10 to $~.25. Despite these measures, the District found it necessary to cut approximately 1,000 hours of bus service by reducing some frequencies and eliminating most evening, owl and weekend service, except on 21 basic trunk lines. A survey of riders revealed that the changes in travel time and 2-12
in bus and rail expenses before and after the cuts cost riders $48.1 million in added travel expenses, income losses, and the value of added travel time. The AC Transit case study demonstrates the importance of fixed-route service to the community and the economic costs that can result from its curtailment even in low patronage, off-peak hours. It has implications for welfare reform measures, which have assumed that public transportation will be available for new job-seekers. The majority of the practices illustrated in the other case studies and in the Compendium are dependent on a core fixed-route service~ne that operates 20-24 hours a day, seven days a week. Reverse Commute Services Between 1966 and 1970, the federal government paid community groups for 14 demonstration projects in 14 cities to test the hypothesis that improved bus service to outlying employment centers would reduce unemployment in inner-city neighborhoods. These demonstration projects were a response to the McCone Commission's report following the 1964 riots in Watts, California, which blamed the civil disturbance on a lack of employment. The Commission argued that unemployment was due, in part, to the inadequate and expensive public transportation connecting Watts with the suburban areas where jobs were increasingly concentrated. Although local and state recipients of the federal grants stressed finding employment for inner-city residents as the purpose of these routes, federal officials desired to create 50 new routes with long-term viability for traditional transit operations. By this measure, the reverse commute routes were a failure; only three of the 14 demonstration reverse commute projects developed routes that were taken over by the transit operators. In addition, "There was little evidence in Watts or elsewhere that reverse commute services got people jobs or even better jobs."~24) l990s Reverse Commute Programs There has been renewed interest in reverse commute programs in the l990s. According to a 1993 survey by the American Public Transit Association, 458,500 riders were utilizing 37 reverse commute programs. Office parks were the key destinations. (25) Several differences between the programs in the 1960s and those of the l990s are keys to the success of the new reverse commute programs: involvement of public transit operators with non-traditional partners; 2-13
collaboration with private sector firms needing increased access to labor; and linkage with support services. The two reverse commute practices documented in this research illustrate the more comprehensive approach of the 199Os. PDRTA's 24-hour rural commute service With the advent of welfare reform, Pee Dee Regional Transportation Authority (PDRTA) in South Carolina has begun 24-hour commute services linking residents in rural areas with entry-level jobs in the tourist industry along the Grand Strand at Myrtle Beach. PDRTA coordinates with the Marion County Department of Social Services (DSS)to transport persons transitioning from welfare to work. Because the labor market is so tight, several employers have agreed to subsidize some of the routes to bring workers living 40-70 miles away to their retail establishments. DSS provides assistance with support services, such as job training, child care, and counseling, to help workers succeed in this transition. DSS has dramatically decreased its welfare caseload. At the same time PDRTA's reverse commute program has contributed to an increase in net annual benefits of more than $2 million from earnings of those formerly unemployed or underemployed, and from savings in unemployment, welfare and food stamp assistance. For every $! invested in the program, there is an annual net economic benefit of $26.60 SEPTA's Horsham Breeze Shuttle Developers initiated discussions with the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) for improved transit service from downtown Philadelphia to Horsham business parks, 18 miles to the north. In November, 1996, SEPTA introduced the Horsham Breeze, a lO-mile loop serving major employers, such as United Parcel Service (UPS) and Prudential Insurance, which connects with timed transfers to three Axed routes. The 25-foot buses, funded by a federal Congestion Management and Air Quality (CMAQ) grant, are driven by part-time drivers, under a labor agreement allowing 40% less wages than fi~-time drivers. With peak service at 10-20 minute headways, ridership has grown to 800 passengers on 39 daily trips. The Partnership Transportation Management Association (TMA), which actively promotes the Horsham Breeze, attributes some of the swelling ridership to new employers who moved to the business park partially because of the Horsham Breeze's ability to supply them with entry-level and service employees. Employees can earn $~-12 an hour in these jobs. To meet the extended workday hours typical of these types of jobs, Montgomery County pays for midday hourly service, and employers subsidize evening and 2-14
Saturday service. For every $! invested in the program, there is an annual net economic benefit of $7.30. As these two case studies indicate, increasing access to jobs involves strong alliances between the public transportation operator and non-traditional partners. According to one evaluation of the 1960s reverse commute programs designed by community organizations, the lack of involvement by the mass transit industry ". ..undermined the program and made testing of innovative operation rather meaningless." (26) In contrast, both of these examples are dependent upon a willingness of the public transit provider to actively participate. The result is routes designed to meet transit industry standards as well as the social ant] economic goals of transit's partners. In the SEPTA example, traditional funding partners, such as Montgomery County and the federal government, were supplemented by subsidies from UPS and Prudential. Similarly, PDRTA received private sector fi~nding support. In both instances, the neec] for labor by businesses meshed well with the transit agencies' mission to increase ridership and to fill mobility gaps within their service areas. Another non-traditional partner highlighted in the PDRTA case study is the Department of Social Services. It has not been typical for transit staff and social workers to collaborate so directly. In this example, DSS also provides support services critical to the success of the transit routes. Without DSS' resources to assist employees in keeping their jobs, ridership could be too unstable to maintain the transit routes. In the SEPTA example, promotion by the Partnership TMA has been an important contributor to the increases in ridership. Another example, from the Compendium in Chapter 5, further illustrates these keys to success in the 199Os reverse commute programs: Bridges to Work Bridges to Work is an $S million project funded primarily from the Ford Foundation and the federal Housing and Urban Development Department. Its goal is to combine reverse commute transportation services with job placement and support services in five metropolitan regions. This mode} goes well beyond the historical reverse commute programs because of its greater attention to a "bundling" of services to meet human needs. Demand Responsive Services Congress passed legislation in 1973 encouraging door-to-door services for the elderly and persons with disabilities. Transit agencies responded by providing special demand responsive services using vans or small buses or by equipping half 2-15
of their fleets with wheelchair lifts. In July, 1990, Congress passed the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), requiring all transportation providers to equip new vehicles with wheelchair lifts and to provide comparable paratransit service for those unable to utilize the accessible fixed-route service. The federal effort to reduce the economic, social and personal costs of immobility has been impressive in both the number of programs and in the amount of expenditures. In 1977 the U.S. General Accounting Office estimated that 114 ~. . separate several programs expended money on transportation services for the disadvantaged and elderly, over half of which were located in the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). By 1985, HHS estimated that it spent $800 million on transportation services alone, or roughly eight times the combined 1989- 90 expenditures of the U.S. Department of Transportation's funding for rural and elderly and handicapped programs. (27) An array of state programs also provide significant funding for demand responsive services directed at the transportation disadvantaged. For example, Florida's legislature has funded a state-level policy board charged with coordinating specialized transportation services for transportation disadvantaged persons. In 1971, the California legislature enacted the Transportation Development Act, creating a fiend out of i/~-cent of the statewide s~x-cent retail sales tax. The law has provided a stable state funding source for public transportation, including demand responsive services, in California. Case Study Examples Four very different demand response programs were studied during this research. All have in common their success as mobility managers backed by community support. OATS INC. Since 1971, OATS has been providing rural transportation, serving 87 of Missouri's 114 counties. The extensive use of volunteers and a creative blending of funding sources have been particularly important contributing factors to reducing immobility in rural portions of the state. The door-to-door service delivery is fairly conventional; the means of organizing, scheduling and dispatching trips is not. OATS volunteers are responsible for scheduling the trips in their county. In 1996, for example, volunteers donated almost 76,000 hours recording ride requests. communicating with drivers and riders. func~raisin~ and ~roviclin~ nublicitv ~ , ~ , County committees are the backbone of ~ . ~ . ~ the OATS operation. This decentralized decision-making leads to a sense of ownership and motivation among the volunteers. Local funding provides 35.~% of the total revenues. The diverse array of funding sources and contracts is a testament to the flexible and entrepreneurial management 2-16
style. OATS returns $2.30 to the community for every $1 invested in the program. MTA's Immediate Needs Transportation Program The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) in California has developed the Immediate Needs Transportation Program, a $5 million program funded from local sales taxes to underwrite both taxi vouchers and bus tokens. MTA staff noses that Immediate Needs "is filling a service niche which is not effectively addressed through other transportation programs." (28) Under the administrative brokerage of two community-based organizations, about 600 social service agencies participate in providing bus and taxi trips to food banks and grocer stores, medical appointments, job training and job interviews, and for emergencies. In the first half of 1997, over 403,000 trips were provided at an average cost of $~.50. (29) For every $1 invested in the program, the annual net economic benefit is $2.60. City of Fremont's Travel Training Project Unlike the two programs described above, the Travel Training Project developed by Fremont, a suburban city of 190,000 located in Northern California, seeks to increase mobility for the elderly and people with disabilities by decreasing their reliance on demand responsive services. Goals are to expand travel options and create long term behavioral change by training this population to ride fixed-route, public transit. Central to the philosophy of the program's design is that training should occur in groups with peers as travel training assistants. The Travel Training Project was conducted with residents from Fremont and four adjacent cities in study, 1993 through June, 1996. AC Transit District, the Bay Area Rapid Transit District and Union City Transit funded the project to determine whether it could reduce the costs and demands on their paratransit systems resulting from ADA. An analysis demonstrates that the transit agencies will potentially save $407,442 over five years, assuming each transit trip made by participants offsets one paratransit trip. The benefit/cost ratio is 1.9, meaning that for every $! invested in the Travel Training Project, the benefit is $~.90. Individuals who have been trained also save $~.90 (the difference between the bus fare and the paratransit fare). Numero Uno Market Shoppers' Shuttle As was shown in the reverse commute case studies, private businesses will often provide transportation assistance if they perceive a positive economic return. The owner of Numero Uno Supermarket in South Central :Los Angeles, California, recognized difficulties his customers had carrying their groceries home without an automobile. Many ride an MTA bus or walk to the store, very often accompanied by their children. To help his customers and to build customer loyalty, this entrepreneur provides a modified demand 2-17
responsive system to customers who buy at least $30 worth of groceries. After making their purchases, customers can board one of the nine vans he has available to take them and their families and bags of groceries home free of charge. The store is one of the top five supermarkets in Los Angeles, grossing more than the industry's average sales. The van service is less than 1% of the market's gross volume in sales. The Compendium includes additional examples of demand responsive services, such as the San Diego DART in California, which uses vans as feeders to fixed routes, picking up callers in suburban and rural areas and transporting them to a transfer point for the mainline bus routes. Reduced Fares Historically, mechanisms to reduce fares have been focused on the elderly and people with disabilities. In late 1974, Congress made discount fares for the elderly virtually universal by requiring that any urban transit system receiving federal operating assistance charge elderly and disabled riders half or less of the base fare. In the late 1970s and early 19SOs, the federal government funded demonstration projects to provide low-cost, shared-ride taxi services for the elderly and people with disabilities. These "user~side" subsidies consisted of below-cost vouchers, scrip, or tickets which the user could buy from a sponsoring agency and then redeem from a transportation provider for the full value of a trip. (30) Case Study Examples Both these mechanisms~iscounted fares and user subsidies-continue to be cost-effective means of reducing fares for the transportation disadvantaged. Use of the mechanisms has expanded to aid low-income groups, although not with the widespread application afforded the elderly and people with disabilities. The Immediate Needs Transportation Program, described in the previous section, is an example where the MTA has used discounted tokens and taxi vouchers to fiend $5 million toward the unmet transportation needs of its poorest constituents. In the case study below, a reduced fare program provides greater mobility for Medicare patients in Miami, Florida, while containing the state's Medicare costs and increasing the transit agency~s fixed-route ridership. MDTA's Medicaid Metropass Program Medicaid is a federal entitlement program that pays for basic health care services for low income people and long-term care for the elderly and persons with disabilities. In order to reduce its transportation costs for non- emergency medical services, the Medicaid office in Miami, Florida, contracts with Metro-Dade Transit Agency (MDTA) to administer a Metropass program. Under this program, a Medicaid recipient who agrees to give up 2-~S
door-to-door paratransit receives a monthly bus pass for I. To make the program cost-effective, Medicaid requires that only recipients who make six or more one-way trips a month for three consecutive months are eligible. The third one-way trip is the break-even point for Medicaid, when the cost of the paratransit trips matches the cost of a monthly pass. The result of the Metropass program is a savings to Medicaid of over $500,000 a month in transportation costs. MDTA benefits by increased pass sales of 3,600 a month, by receipt of $4-6 per pass in reimbursement from Medicaid for administration of the program, and by avoidance of $10 million in potential ADA costs. Riders benefit from increased mobility, independence and flexibility. Since the $! per month bus pass is less than the $l per ride co- payment on paratransit, Medicaid recipients also have an economic incentive to enroll in the Metropass program. The Compendium features additional examples, including systems in Utah and Washington where fares are free. Livable Communities In 1994 the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) introduced the Livable Communities Initiative to improve mobility and the quality of life by: strengthening the link between transit and community planning, including land use policies and urban design standards which support the use of transit; 2) promoting increased participation by neighborhood and community organizations, small and minority businesses, persons with disabilities and the elderly; 3) increasing access to or generating employment through high quality community- oriented transit services and facilities; and 4) serving, where appropriate, as the transportation component for the Empowerment Zones and Enterprise Communities (EZ/EC) Program of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). (31) To date, FTA has awarded 17 demonstration grants in various communities, including the Fruitvale BART Station project in Oakland, California, detailed below. Case Study Examples Fruitvale BART Transit Village The Fruitvale BART Transit Village is an example of community-based planning which responds to immobility by moving the services to the people who need them. The centerpiece of the plan is the Bay Area Rapid Transit 2-19
District's (BART) commuter raid station located in the Fruilvale neighborhood of Oakland, California. The Spanish Speaking Unity Council, a community development corporation serving the 51,000 people in this neighborhood, has taken the lead in the revitalization of the BART station area. Tt has proposed the Transit Village, which will link transportation with a mix of social services, retail, and residential uses. Among the community services planned are a health care center, a senior citizens' center, housing for senior citizens, a child care center, a community resource center, and a library branch. One of the most impressive aspects of the Transit Village project is the package of public funding that has been assembled by the Unity Council, which in;clucles federal funds from FTA, HUD, the EC Program and three other agencies, along with county and city funds. A private developer will build the market rate retail and residential projects in partnership with the Unity Council. City of Compton's Blue Line TeleVillage The Blue Line TeleVillage creates mobility through technology. Located in Compton, a California city of over 90~000 near South-Central Los Ankles, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~-~ ~ · ~ ~ the ~ Savage allows residents and employees to access many services without the need to travel. The TeleVillage is a virtual Main Street which connects people electronically through a Telework Center, a computer lab with Internet access, a video conference center, and interactive kiosks. Funded by the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) and the City of Compton, it is served by local bus routes, MTA routes, Greyhound and the Blue Line light rail at Compton's trap sit hub. Although the project was not FTA-fi~nded, part of the impetus for building the TeleVillage was the transportation agency's desire to create Livable Communities through joint development at the light rail stations. With federal welfare reform, the TeleVillage will now also become part of a one- stop training center, where welfare recipients will be enrolled in computer courses and distance learning classes. While not formally Livable Communities Initiative projects, examples in the Compendium of a Neighborhood Travel Center in Texas and the Broadway- Manchester Transit Center in Los Angeles follow the Initiative's principle of strengthening the link between transit and community planning. Social Services Coordination While coordination of public transportation with the transportation provided through the social service system has long been a goal, the goal has been difficult to achieve. One reason is the division of responsibility for transportation at the federal level. Whereas public transportation is the primary focus of the Federal Transit Administration, it is only an ancillary service for many other federal 2-20
departments that fund transportation. Yet Medicaid non-emergency transportation, which the federal Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) funds, is the second largest federal expenditure for public transportation, amounting to $~.5 billion. (32) Although transportation is recognized as important to current welfare recipients' successful entry into the job market, transportation is not called out specifically as an expenditure in the $3 billion the federal Department of Labor will administer to accomplish welfare reform. (However, Congress has required the Department of Transportation to develop joint planning guidelines with HHS on ways to provide transportation under welfare reform.) Instead, coordination of public transit and social services has historically taken place at the state level. Florida has developed a five-year plan and has designated an official planning agency in each county to coordinate services for the transportation disadvantaged. California state law allows for the designation of a consolidated transportation service agency to coordinate social service agency demand responsive services through such actions as joint dispatching, purchase of vehicle insurance, driver training and shared vehicle use. South Carolina has formed an Interagency Steering Committee to address the concerns of inefficiency in transportation services. Thus, although implementation of the public policy to coordinate public transportation with social services transportation has been spotty, it is continuing to evolve with the impetus of welfare reform. Case StudY Examples: Even at the local level, coordination of transportation among social service agencies and with the public transportation provider is not easy. Many social service agencies clo not track transportation costs as separate line items. Within some social service agencies, drivers serve dual functions, and the salaries are allocated to a program other than transportation, Some vehicles are multi-purpose, used for transporting clients, staff, hot meals, supplies, etc. (33) Agencies lack an understanding of each other's goals and fear that their programs will suffer if they share scarce resources. This TCRP research includes a case study on such barriers to coordination faced by a rural county in South Carolina and the methods participants undertook to overcome them. Chesterfield County Coordinating Council in South Carolina The Chesterfield County Coordinating Council (CCCC) strives to better utilize existing resources in order to increase mobility for clients of rural human services agencies. BY tanging into unused capacitor of vehicles owned . . . .. . . ~. - . ~. ~· by several organizations, it is an example of coordination among the social services, school district, and the public transportation provider. Transportation has emerged as one of the primary obstacles to better delivery of social services among its 43 member agencies. Some of the elements of its coordinated transportation plan include: 2-21
sharing vehicles and drivers among agencies, pooling driver training, layering a new fixed route on top of door-to-door transportation, adding adult passengers on school buses, and · freeing case workers from transporting clients. For other case study examples of coordination with health and human services transportation. refer to these practices described above in other sections: MDTA's Medicaid Metropass Program ; MTA's Immediate Needs Transportation Program; PDRTA's 24-hour rural commute service; and OATS, INC. EMPOWERMENT ZONE AND ENTERPRISE COMM[~41TIES (EZtEC) At the time of this research, the EZ/ECs contacted were only in the planning stage for the transportation projects under consideration. Future research could document the community efforts and barriers overcome in moving these projects to implementation. The ideas being developed by these EZ/ECs are described earlier in this chapter on pages 2-6 to 2-~. KEY FINDINGS The next chapter presents eight key findings of this research. It is based on the literature review, stakeholder interviews, and case studies, including an economic analysis of the 11 practices investigated. The chapter captures themes that are central to using public transportation to address the economic, social and Herman costs of personal immobility. 2-22
CHAPTER REFERENCES (~) For a complete discussion of mobility rates, see Appendix B. General Population Mobility Trends. (2) The summary presented in this section is derived from Lave, C. and Crepeau, R., "Travel by Households Without Automobiles," Nationwide Personal Transportation Survey, Travel Mode Special Reports, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration (December 19941. For a more complete discussion, see Appendix B. Travel Impacts on Individuals Without Access to Automobiles. (3) Grey Advertising, Technical Report of the National Survey of Transportation Handicapped People. U.S. Department of Transportation, Urban Mass Transportation Administration, Washington, D.C. (September 19781. (4) Rosenbloom, S., "Travel by Women," Nationwide Personal Transportation Survey, Demographic Special Reports, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C. (February 1995). hi) Blake, S., Inner City Minority Transit Needs in Accessing Suburban Employment Centers: Final Report of the Project to Assess and Address Suburban Employment Centers. National Association of Regional Councils, Washington D.C. (1990). (6) have, C. and Crepeau, R., "Travel by Households Without Automobiles," Nationwide Personal Transportation Survey, Travel Mode Special Reports, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration (December 1994). (7) Blake, S., Inner City Minority Transit Needs in Accessing Suburban Employment Centers: Final Report of the Project to Assess and Address Suburban Employment Centers. National Association of Regional Councils, Washington, D.C. (1990), p. 2. is) Cervero, R., American Suburban Centers: A Study of leans Use-Transportation link. Department of Transportation Urban Mass Transportation Administration (1988), p. 2. (9) American Public Transit Association, Access to Opportunity, Linking Inner City Workers to Suburban Jobs. Washington D.C. (May 1994), p. 15. 2-23
(10) Hughes, M., Over the Horizon: Jobs in the Suburbs of Major Metropolitan' Areas. Report to Public/Private Ventures (December 1993), p. 10. (11) Blake, S., Inner City Minority Transit Needs in Accessing Suburban Employment Centers: Final Report of the Project to Assess and Address Suburban Employment Centers. National Association of Regional Councils, Washington, D.C. (1990~. (12) Community Transit Association of America, "Rural Transit: Stretching to Meet the Needs of the Neediest." Fact Sheet 9, Washington, D.C. (January 19951. (13) Pucher, J., "Equity in Transit Finance." Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 47 (October 19811. (14) Pucher, J., "Discrimination in Mass Transit." Journal of the American Plating Association, Vol. 48 Number 3 (Summer 1982b). (16) Rock, S. M., "Income Equity of Two Transit Funding Sources." Trar~sportation Research Record #791 (19811. (16) Pucher, d., "Discrimination in Mass Transit." Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 4S, Number 3, Summer (1982b). (17) APTA, Statistics Summary, www.apta.com (February 2, 19981. (18) Saltzman, A., "Public Transportation in the 20th Century," Public Transportation, in Edition Prentice Hall New Jersey (1992), p. 24. (19) See for example: Jones, D., Urban Transit Policy: An Economic and Political History. Prentice Hall, New Jersey (1986~. (20) Public Transit Association, Transit Operating Reports-1960, New York (1961), p. 2-6. (21) Jones, D., Urban Transit Policy: An Economic and Political History Prentice Hall, New Jersey (1986), p. 81. (22) Lave, C.A., ed. Urban Transit: The Private Challenge to Public Transportation, Pacific Studies in Public Policy, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA (19791. 2-24
(23) Saltzman, A., "Public Transportation in the 20th Century," in Public Transportation, in Edition, Prentice Hall, New Jersey (1992), p. 41. (24) These two paragraphs are summaries from Sandra Rosenbloom, Reverse Commute Transportation; Emerging Provider Roles, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Washington, D.C. (March 19921. (25) American Public Transit Association, Access to Opportunity, A Study of Reverse Commute Programs, Washington, D.C. (September 19931. (26) Crain, d., The Reverse Commute Experiment: A $7 Million Demonstration Program, Stanford Research Institute for the Urban Mass Transportation Administration, SRT Project MSU-759S, MenIo Park, CA (December 19701. (27) Rosenbloom, S., "The Transportation Disadvantaged," Public Transportation, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey (19921. (28) Report to Board of Directors dated June 1S, 1996. (29) MTA spreadsheet from the Program Manager, dated November 7, 1997 . (30) Spear, B.D, "User-side Subsidies: Delivering Special-Needs Transportation Through Private Providers." Transportation Research Record 850: Issues in the Provision of Transportation Services for the Elderly and Handicapped, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C. (191321. (31) Federal Transit Administration, "Livable Communities Initiative," U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C. (November 19941. (32) Community Transportation Association of America, "Medicaid Transportation and Managed Care: An Overview," Washington, D.C. (May 8, 1997) (33) CCCC Coordinated Transit Grant Final Report (September 29, 19971. 2-25
