Discussing Mass Transit Part I

August 13th, 2008 at 08:47am Common Sense Alliance 1530

Discussing

Mass

Transit

Part I

Who is Served?

With apologies to Abraham Lincoln, some of the people can ride the bus all of the time, all of the people could ride the bus some of the time, but not all of the people will ride the bus all of the time.

And it’s not a matter of how much room is on the bus; mass transit of any kind is limited to a particular kind of service. There must be a match between the type of trip a traveler is making, and the trip that transit can provide.

If:

1. you regularly travel from a particular Point A to the same Point B;

2. you don’t need to take, or pick up, more stuff than you can easily carry;

3. your Point B is located at a convenient walking distance from a transit stop;

4. you generally spend a significant amount of time at Point B;

5. and you usually return directly to Point A;

you may potentially be a regular customer for mass transit. You may still decide not to use the bus based on personal preference, but at least your Limited-purpose travel needs match the limited capability of transit service.

“Limited-purpose” is a term created for this discussion to better describe the core transit customer, and to reinforce the point that it isn’t about the person, it’s about the trip. For example, the term “commuter” is often used to imply someone who could be taking the bus. However, not all commuters travel to a location close to a mass transit stop, and commuters often need to carry things, or make other trips, before returning to Point A. A commuter isn’t necessarily making a Limited-purpose trip suitable for mass transit, even though many such trips are made by commuters.

On the other hand, if:

1. you usually start from the same Point A, but Point B could be anywhere;

2. Point B is just one of several destinations;

3. one or more of your destinations is nowhere near a mass transit stop;

4. very little time is spent at one or more destinations;

5. you need to take, or pick up, more stuff than you can comfortably carry;

you aren’t likely to be a mass transit customer regardless of your personal preference. Your “Multi-purpose” trips just don’t match the service which mass transit can provide.

The type of trip determines whether it is practical to even consider using transit services, but this overriding principle receives very little attention. We no longer notice the very obvious circumstance which confirms the limited application of mass transit, and we have lost sight of the consequences.

Because mass transit is not sufficiently cost effective, in large part because not enough of our trips fit the Limited-purpose profile, private companies are unable to offer this service. This is why mass transit is a government program supported with tax dollars.

People whose lives don’t fit a bus schedule have no moral obligation to be subsidizing the transportation costs of people whose lives do happen to fit a bus schedule – but it certainly turns out that way. Perhaps someday a simple thank you would be in order.

What is the rationale for having a tax subsidized transit program?

Some transit proponents insist that mass transit reduces traffic congestion, and, in the extreme case of the Entrance to Aspen, that transit can even serve as a substitute for an adequate highway. Effects on congestion and pollution are too minimal to matter anywhere but the most densely populated urban environment, and there is no substitute for adequate public infrastructure - regardless of whether the subject is highways, hospitals, or sewage treatment plants.

Transit is a very nice public amenity, and is no doubt appreciated by our visitors, but neither attribute explains why it shouldn’t be paying its own way.

So, from a public policy perspective, the only social need that can justify tax subsidized transit services is the benefit to those citizens who are either too young, too old, or too broke to own and operate their own vehicle. We should evaluate transit funding in the context of the value of their mobility compared to competing social needs.

The sponsors of this public discussion ask only that the conversation be relevant to the actual conditions in our area, not New York or LA, and suggest that assessing the value of, and appropriate expenditure for, mass transit should be based on verifiable benefits, not ideological faith.

Next: Part II

Is it possible to have enough mass transit? How do you know when you get there?

Entry Filed under: Transportation, Aspen, Pitkin County

4 Comments Add your own

1. dankinney | August 15th, 2008 at 8:09 am

So, in essence, we have "Taxation without equal representation" for many of us who live especially in Pitkin County.
If you live in Redstone or Woody Creek (as I do) & in other areas, an "equal" portion of our taxes go to subsidize RFTA, right? BUT we do not have equal access.
So when the town of Snowmass Village comes up with funds for free bus travel between Aspen & Snowmass Village, shouldn't some of those funds be, in turn, used to subsidize our use?
2. jeffreyevans | August 18th, 2008 at 3:04 pm

Your comment reminded me of a dust-up in Redstone in the months after the RTA was approved in November of 2000, so I went looking in the archives at the local newspapers. Some of the Redstone folks thought they would get some bus service by voting for the new tax district, and were less than thrilled when it vaporized. Said Robert Huntington at the time, "I think it's grossly unfair to initiate service to New Castle and Rifle without first taking care of Redstone," he said. "After all, we're paying into the RTA; the people down there aren't."
(New Castle has since joined RFTA.)

Still, it's not exactly like taxation without representation, because both you and the Redstonians are represented.
I don't know who your commissioner is for Woody Creek, but back in 2000, Redstone area commissioner Dorothea Farris reportedly said, "Of course I didn't promise there would be bus service. I promised to look into providing that service. All I can do is take it to the RTA board," she said.

Of course the guy from RFTA who explained their postion cited priorities: "...Because of a tight budget, services were prioritized. As a result, many services, including Redstone bus service, were not included in the list of goals."

Nothing like being told they didn't do it because they didn't do it.

As for Woody Creek, you do get some service (don't you?), but your point about reciprocity seems spot on to me. No bus system is terribly efficient, so I would be curious to know how inefficient a particular route has to be before getting the ax (or never getting funded), and what info is used to make that call.
3. Mitch Mulhall | August 20th, 2008 at 6:47 pm

Jeffrey,

[[I]t's not exactly like taxation without representation, because both you and the Redstonians are represented.]

You're right. It's not taxation without representation, it's taxation with representation willing to throw you under the bus. It's Pitkin County taxation for a service "Redstonians" will never enjoy... taxation designed to support the continued inflow of tourism dollars into Aspen...

Redstone's problem is that it's not a bedroom community for laborers who support Aspen tourism and construction. It consists in large part of people who are wealthy enough to tax and still pay for their own petrol, even at $4.55 a gallon.

So no, it's not taxation without representation, it's taxation for services that your elected representatives extend to citizens of another county.

That said, if I were still a "Redstonian," the last thing I'd want to see on 133 is a RFTA bus.

Cheers,
4. dankinney | August 21st, 2008 at 9:09 am

Of course both Mitch & Jeffrey are right on. If I lived in Redstone however, I would insist upon the county providing some sort of service. It 's just flat out unfair for Redstone to pay anything for absolutely no service at all!
Even if it were just 3 or 4 runs per day. The county has a moral obligation to connect the geographically separated parts of the county to the rest of itself.

For us in Woody Creek, we get a few runs in the morning once per hour then several in the evening again but only during the "season". We get absolutely zilch during the day & the "off season". What this means, unlike Redstone, is that if you have a job to go to during the off season, you have to have a car. The proximity to Aspen is such that once you get the car, paying for insurance, maintanance, etc., then you might as well drive the car to work all the time. The amount you'd save by parking at the intercep lot doesn't counter the convenience.

I know it sounds like whining but have you ridden RFTA during the off season or the middle part of the day arround here? I have & what I've observed are buses running most often 1/2-full or less. Between Old Snowmass & The Intercept lot (or vise versa) the bus doesn't stop. Barely any demand. You can't tell me that there is no way to somehow run a bus on the River Roads once an hour year long.

I've brought this up to RFTA in the past & was told that there were safty issues. Bull***t! There are no safty issues 6 months of the year & if there were safty issues during the winter how come when Highway 82 gets closed they run busses on Lower River Road?? I DO think that a smaller, more fuel efficient bus could & should be run during the less than peak times.

But then, we're talking "common sence" right? Look who we are dealing with. The same folks who have brought us a constant stream of road construction year after year at the entrance to Aspen, 2 traffic lights a couple of hunderd yards apart at Buttermilk, and high occupancy vehicle lanes in the right lanes all of which will be blamed on other governmental entities.