Transit Advocates, Highway Planners Share The Blame For Transportation Stagnation

In the useless war of highways versus transit, both transit advocates and highway planners are guilty of ignoring the problems with their respective solutions, while the American public is left without any practical solutions for moving beyond auto dependence.

 Patrick HareWhy don't transit advocates or highway planners provide sound transportation options that the public can embrace, rather than simply calling for more transit or wider roads? Maybe because both sides think they don't have to.

"The public benefits of transit are obvious," the transit advocates say. "People should just get religion and ride transit." Environmental morality makes it unnecessary for transit advocates to consider that transit is incredibly slow compared to cars: 7 mph average for rail, 4 mph average for buses, door-to-door. And too often transit advocates ignore the ultimate marketing against transit: walking and waiting with parcels in the freezing rain or sweltering heat.

On the other side, highway planners think they don't have to re-consider their solution either. They have little incentive to support their conclusions, because the votes are almost always there for more highways. But highway planners ignore the fact that even if they wanted to, suburbanites can't vote for transit. The stretched spider web of suburban roads and homes and businesses means many stops for very few passengers, buses that get caught in car congestion, and very low fare-box returns. The result is expensive "stop and-go-slow" transit. The only thing suburbanites can vote for is road building. "Transit advocates don't understand," the highway planners say. "People vote for roads." But it is a rigged election. There is only one candidate.

So we have one major group of transportation planners enclosed in a mental box protected by endless votes for roads, and the other major group enclosed in a mental box protected by endless environmental morality. And these boxes aren't just regular boxes. They are mental pillboxes made of solid mental concrete. The two groups, encased in their mental pillboxes and reluctant to think "outside the box", proceed to engage each other in an endless war. Their intense vocal debate, combined with the media's love of a good fight, serves to crowd out other perspectives.

The transit versus roads debate itself has hardly changed in 50 years, and neither has transportation. The only major consumer acceptance of any improvement in transportation -- the introduction of hybrid vehicles -- has not come from American transportation planners, or even from this country.

Underpinning the futility of the pillbox war is the fact that almost all transportation planning, for both transit and roads, is done without anybody paying any attention at all to the major transportation costs to most individual households: cars.

Transportation models are the incredibly detailed computer models that project how many cars will be on a road, or how many people will ride transit. They ignore the costs of cars to households. Transportation models also ignore nearly all the public costs of providing roads and transit. In both cases, this practice is like estimating how much food your family will eat if no one has to pay anything for any of the food, even if you eat out all the time. In other words, transportation planning is based on the government version of fast-food economics: super-sized, super-subsidized portions of both transit and highways.

While it may sound mean, it is ultimately helpful to think of both sides of the transportation debate as hiding inside their protective mental pillboxes, while whining, "the problem is so complex!" It is complex because neither side is willing to look at the problems of its own thinking. It is arguable that both sides have a joint, if perhaps unconscious, self-interest in letting their unproductive war keep any other views from getting significant air time.

Rather than continuing the useless pillbox war, there should be a serious public debate on how much cars cost households. How might instant, near-home car rental allow households to give up a third or second car? Would the substantial savings a household receives from owning and maintaining fewer cars more than compensate for the extra time and discomfort spent riding transit?

Another public debate should revolve around how the mortgage banking system ignores household transportation costs. The predominant thinking by lenders means that households can "afford" to buy a home in a far-out exurban community, even though many of those homebuyers will now have car costs that will in some cases be higher than their housing costs. But what are the economic and environmental savings if a household could "afford" to buy a more expensive home in a centrally located community with good transit access?

These issues and others are virtually never part of public debate.

Many Americans are looking for alternatives to cars to reduce their energy consumption, but are reluctant to climb aboard transit systems that do little to address transit's major drawbacks. It is time for both sides of the transportation debate to step out of their pillboxes and start considering real solutions for moving around the modern American city.

Patrick H. Hare is a housing and transportation planner who lives in Cornwall, CT.



Michael Dudley's picture

Car Ownership Costs and Mortgage Lending

Mr. Hare makes some good points, but his closing remarks that financial costs of car ownership not being taken into account by home lending isn't really accurate. For at least 7 years homebuyers have been able to access Location Efficient Mortgages or, more commonly, Smart Commute Mortgages, which offer preferential terms to people who live near public transit. See:

Along these lines

I remember a previous Planetizen news item ( which describes an effort by a think tank (sponsored by FTA and HUD) to calculate and map 'true costs' (combined transportation and housing costs) for individual regions. The idea is to promote more informed locational choices.

It's particularly interesting in that the data is analyzed and mapped at the tract level. The article linked in the Planetizen piece indicates that the group plans to perform this analysis for 29 regions, but I could not find any specifics on the web site (

Housing Affordability Index

Jeffrey Wood of Reconnecting America pointed me in the direction of this link (, which includes the full report describing the Affordability Index tool in detail (he was unable to post on Planetizen for some reason).

Car Ownership Costs and Mortgage Lending

Location-efficient mortgages exist only because households don't bear the cost of public transit. When a household surrenders its second car, those expenses, or at least the bulk of them, should, in theory, be transferred to transit fares. Transit advocates want too much to rely on lunches that really aren't free.

What about car sharing?

Car sharing. It's done in Europe and a few U.S. cities.

About Time

I think Mr. Hare has hit the nail on the head. The cost of using motorized transport is born by the entire community / State / Country, drivers and non-drivers alike. Motorized transportation, which is unsustainable, should not be favored above all other forms of transportation. In the words of the Fixx: "One thing leads to another". Transportation effects job opportunity, housing, health, social equity, the economy and the environment. It's time to stop seperating transportation from all other aspects of life and come to terms with the real costs associated with all forms of travel.

More Roads vs. Transit

James Pugsley, AICP

Since we have a lot more roads built in the USA than we have transit, we need to look first at how best to use our roads. One example is offered already in many places such as Manila or Bangkok- the spontaneous transit provided by jitneys or other informal taxi-like services. In the U.S., providers of taxi services operate under many good regulations designed to promote safety, but I think it can be argued that a lot of the regulation serves only to protect taxi services from competition. We should experiment with lifting the regulation, and see how far we can go while keeping it safe. The best design of routes, sechedules, and stops for small scale transit is far beyond the ability of government agencies, is constantly in flux, and should be left to the private sector.
Many informal transit systems are already in operation in the immigrant community. We now also have millions of SUVs clogging our roads that would be ideal for use in small scale transit- turning them from liabilities into assets. If there is ever a real disruption in oil imports, we can look for informal transit systems to arise spontaneously and chaotically- why not let them form now, with safety regulations and paying taxes.
Let's see how many households could skip a second or third car if this were available. It would probably work well some places, not so well in others. There would be a technological learning curve- in-dash navigation, GPS tracking, and hybrid SUVs come to mind. Those things seem underused in current taxis. There would be a learning curve in scheduling and route design that would be particular to each place. Let's not wait until some disaster in the Middle East forces us to develop these things under pressure.

Prepare for the AICP* Exam

Join the thousands of students who have utilized the Planetizen AICP* Exam Preparation Class to prepare for the American Planning Association's AICP* exam.
Starting at $245

Essential Readings in Urban Planning

Planning on taking the AICP* Exam? Register for Planetizen's AICP * Exam Preparation Course to save $25.
City Plate table setting

New Arrival! City Plates

City downtown cores printed on gorgeous decorative collectible porcelain plates.
Grids and Guides Notepad Set

Spark Your Creative Thinking

Grids and Guides Notepad Set