Correcting the imbalance in US transportation policy and its influencers

My friend Benjamin Ross, an author and transportation and urban development historian from the DC area, penned an article for the current issue of Dissent magazine that reports his research into the seeming infatuation of major foundations, think tanks and environmental nonprofits with the idea of Bus Rapid Transit (BRT). As a reader of a number of environmental and sustainability publications, I had been somewhat cognizant of the preponderance of articles that praise BRT as a cost-effective way for localities to greatly improve transit service without the expense of building new rights-of-way and installing the necessary equipment for rail transit. I had wondered why there weren’t more pieces promoting rail. It turns out that the reason can be found, as is the case with many things, by following the money.

Connecting many examples of studies and prominent advocacy pieces promoting BRT with the funders of the groups behind them, Ross shows that BRT gets so much attention because it serves the interests of oil, asphalt and highway construction companies (among others) who have a lot more resources than those in the rail industry as they have benefitted from decades of policy that has privileged highways over other modes — while also appealing to environmentalists and urbanists.

In my transportation policy studies at George Mason University, I was taught not to completely buy into conspiracy theories used to explain the decline of American rail transit and the rise of auto-centrism in the early and mid 20th centuries, and instead to consider a multitude of factors at play. It’s true that history and the development of public policy are marked by complexity and many shades of gray that evade simple explanations. But given the relative positions of the highway/automobile and transit industries today, it makes sense that this imbalance would bleed into the world of philanthropy, think tanks and national/international advocacy organizations.

I’m not making these points to knock buses. As Ross maintains, buses are the backbone of many regions’ public mobility systems, and bus networks often are cost-effective solutions to transit problems. There are no one-size-fits-all solutions in transportation, and it is generally better to let communities determine organically how they want their transportation systems — and hence the places they live, work, shop and play — to look. 

There are places where BRT in its various permutations is needed. But BRT should not be built instead of a rail system where rail would do the job better — where there exists or is the potential for large numbers of people to be moved rapidly at high frequencies, and where there is a desire to focus new residential and commercial development around high-capacity transit nodes. Building BRT in such situations often results in more asphalt and a bigger footprint on the landscape than necessary, and could make for higher than necessary operating costs over time as rail vehicles carry more passengers per operator and need less frequent heavy maintenance and replacement than even the most capacious and advanced buses.

In spite of the rubber tire backers’ efforts, more American communities are building and expanding commuter rail and rail transit systems, which is growing the number of businesses — operations and maintenance contractors, equipment manufacturers, suppliers, planners, and consultants of various stripes — that have a vested interest in the continued growth and vitality of the rail mode. Hopefully, these interests will be united and organized enough to bring countervailing pressure to bear in the policy arena so that there are at least as likely to be reports and studies out there that favor passenger rail as there are that back buses or more road building as alternatives. 

Let us also work to elect and have hired local and state government leaders who will deliver the transportation improvements that best serve their constituents without modal bias and with an eye towards small-scale, ground-up planning that nurtures and sustains the kind of places that are worth caring about and spending time in. Such places should include rail cars and train and transit stations.