The recent passage of the bipartisan Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) was, for many alternative transportation enthusiasts, a disappointment. Although such bipartisan action can be viewed as a welcome relief in an era of polarization and deadlock, it also marks a substantial decrease in funding for bike and pedestrian infrastructure initiatives while keeping funding for public transportation at the status quo. Despite the lackluster support from the federal government for initiatives, some cities and states are still pursuing their own innovative transportation projects.
On July 6th, the same day that President Obama signed MAP-21, the California State Senate approved funding—supported by beleaguered federal money—for a high-speed rail line that would connect San Francisco and Los Angeles. Proponents say that such a project could stimulate California’s economy and increase demand for travel between the two metropolises, and CEOs for Cities’ City Vitals 2.0 suggests that greater connectivity within and between cities helps to foster innovation and promote economic collaboration.
While most urban transportation infrastructure isn’t of the same magnitude as California’s impending high-speed railway, cities still face an array of hurdles that must be overcome before subways and buses become a staple of middle class lifestyle. Socioeconomic stigma often precludes many middle class commuters from taking public transit, and a smaller ridership can often lead to less efficiency and further system degradation; consequently, transportation authorities wishing to expand their markets and increase their vitality must find ways to recreate their image amongst the more affluent portions of the urban population. In Western European countries, the ubiquity of public transportation, complemented by a diverse ridership, has helped to drive down costs in many cities and, through technological and managerial breakthroughs like driverless trains, has made transit more efficient, thereby reducing congestion and environmental externalities caused by commuters.
Because rider diversity and transit success exist in a symbiotic relationship, CEOs for Cities’ City Vitals 2.0 outlines the percentage of non-poor workers who commute to work. Reflecting these findings on the connection between public transportation, health, and diversity, cities like Los Angeles are spending large chunks of their budgets on re-imaging to attract “choice” riders (those who take public transportation out of choice instead of necessity). Cities, however, must also balance the desire to increase and diversify ridership with providing adequate service to those who depend upon public transportation.
Washington, D.C.’s DC Circulator seems to have struck a balance between equity and attractiveness—with five simple routes, buses arriving every ten minutes, and one-dollar fares, the Circulator combines convenience and affordability. This has appealed to both affluent and working-class residents; sixty percent of riders hold a college degree or higher, eighteen percent make over $80,000 per year, and forty-four percent make less than $40,000 per year. Cities wishing to expand their markets with local innovation should look to Washington, DC’s revamped system and Los Angeles’s diversification efforts as archetypes for urban success.