The Poverty/Bus Nexus

Looks like Donna Edwards, the future of the MD-4 and hero of the internet, has sound views on the bus, telling The Washington Post that: "When I drive on the highway now, and I see women with their strollers out there and their young children waiting on the side of the highway, still waiting on the side of the highway, years later, without any shelter, I think, 'That was me.' I just think surely we must be able to make an investment in mass transportation that actually works for people."

Lately, I've mostly talked about transit as an urban planning and energy policy issue, because I think it's good to get away from the "transit is for poor people" stereotype. Still, bus networks are a critical -- but often deeply inadequate -- lifeline for many poor Americans and improved bus service is a critical equity and anti-poverty issue. Go back and read Kate Book's celebrated New Yorker piece "The Marriage Cure" and you'll see that one of several serious problems holding people in welfare dependency is that it's hard to hold down a low-skill job if you're not on time consistently and it's hard to be on time consistently if the bus doesn't arrive on a reliable schedule.

Better buses is hardly a cure-all for poverty. But unlike a lot of other proposed solutions, like the "marriage-promotion" initiatives Boo's article discusses, there's not some giant policy mystery surrounding the bus: If you buy more buses and hire, you can schedule buses more frequently and so on and so forth. This wouldn't end poverty or make being poor an awesome experience, but it would reduce poverty and improve poor people's lives enormously.

Photo by Flickr user NateOne used under a Creative Commons license

Comments

it's hard to hold down a low-skill job if you're not on time consistently and it's hard to be on time consistently if the bus doesn't arrive on a reliable schedule.

It's also hard to hold down a public-facing job if you're stuck waiting for a bus in the rain, at a stop that's on a patch of muddy grass, and show up to work looking like a drowned rat.

Bus shelters. Bus stops that aren't a) next to a busy road with no crossing point and inadequate drainage; b) on sections of road with no sidewalk. Accurate posted timetables. All are bits of social pointing that show bus users to be worthy of respect.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | June 13, 2008 12:36 PM

One issue may be that many transit systems expect to run a profit. That means, a shift to serve busy areas where there is more volume, so less attnention to areas where the poor tend to live which are often outta sight outta mind. Public transit should be *public,* which means being occasionally redistributive. This might cut against the effort to counter the stereotype, though, but actually serving people is definitely more important than whether we can make middle class white people feel better about consumer choices they're not making.

Posted by David B. | June 13, 2008 12:43 PM

Well, it's a cliche, but it's applicable here; if you are going to be in the bus business, then you oughta' run the business right, which means having well designed bus shelters. Gas taxes certainly have done a better job of recouping the user costs of road travel than has been the case with any type fees or taxes asscociated with rail, but they still have been inadequate for decades, and had they been higher, with a larger percentage devoted to improving bus service, our transportation network would undoubtedly work a lot better today.

Posted by Will Allen | June 13, 2008 12:47 PM

I agree with pseudonymous in nc, but how on earth can bus timetables be accurate when the buses are forced to share the same overcrowded streets and highways as cars? Even Mussolini couldn't make Metrobus run on time, unless perhaps he lined up the worst drivers and shot them.

To a certain extent, the problem with buses is that they're buses. But rebuilding streetcar systems from scratch would be expensive and disruptive to auto traffic. And even an ideal hub and spoke mass transit system would simply increase the value of properties near transit stations and drive poorer folks out into the areas most distant from good transportation options.

Any improvement is welcome, but I think some of these problems are more or less intractable.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | June 13, 2008 12:54 PM

When I lived in Hawaii and Rhode Island, the buses were uniformly on time, but when it was late or I was late, there would be another in 15-30 minutes.

When I lived in Tampa, they were close to being on time, but when it was late or I was late, the next bus was like 30-60 minutes later.

It has more to do with scheduling leeway to make up for traffic delays, some places do it better than others

Posted by Andrew | June 13, 2008 1:16 PM

Matthew writes,

Better buses is hardly a cure-all for poverty. But unlike a lot of other proposed solutions, like the "marriage-promotion" initiatives Boo's article discusses, there's not some giant policy mystery surrounding the bus: If you buy more buses and hire, you can schedule buses more frequently and so on and so forth. This wouldn't end poverty or make being poor an awesome experience, but it would reduce poverty and improve poor people's lives enormously.

Sorry, but this is typical of your simplistic and uninformed analysis of transportation policy.

The more money you spend on buses, the less money you have for other kinds of public service to help the poor. The more frequently you run buses on a route, the more empty seats you are likely to have on each bus, and the higher your costs per passenger-mile of service on that route. The higher your costs per passenger-mile per route, the fewer routes you can serve for a given level of spending. The fewer routes you serve, the fewer poor people you can provide with bus service. To fund more frequent service during regular hours, you might also have to cut back service or eliminate it altogether at night or on weekends, which isn't terribly helpful to poor people who need to travel at those times.

In other words, it's complicated. There are many tradeoffs and compromises. Serving the transportation needs of the poor may be a legitimate part of the justification for a municipal bus service, but simply saying "more buses = better for the poor" is naive.

Posted by Mixner | June 13, 2008 1:25 PM

LaFollette Progressive is spot-on. Here in Chicago, the bus lines with the worst on-time records are also on some of its most congested streets. Trying to get to a meeting during evening rush hour, it's definitely better to hoof it for a mile than take a bus. On the way to an appointment, it took 15 minutes to go 5 blocks

What cities need to create are bus-only lanes and ticket offenders. Block-the-box rules should also be implemented and enforced, allowing buses to proceed through intersections in a timely manner. Follow New York's example and include extra points on the driver's record on top of the fine. To me, at least, that was far more motivating than the monetary fine.

If current trends continue - and I believe they will - government at every level will be forced to address with transit issues. I highly recommend this podcast: http://www.onpointradio.org/shows/2008/06/20080609_a_main.asp. Though its initial topic is the rising cost of airfare, it broadens to include transit issues and the impact on our society.

Posted by Judy | June 13, 2008 1:25 PM

Thank you Matt, for another insightful post on public transit. I am still quite interested to hear if anyone knows of any good reads on contemporary transportation policy. I know its a rather specific topic, but I'm eager to become more saavy on the current status of local, state and federal transportation policy on the eve of a major election and in the midst of a national energy crisis.

Posted by Alex | June 13, 2008 1:44 PM

And yet, Mixner, if you put 'more affordable bus service' next to 'marriage promotion incentives' it should be a no-brainer. That it isn't tells us something about how we choose to structure public policy.

Posted by Persia | June 13, 2008 1:46 PM

how on earth can bus timetables be accurate when the buses are forced to share the same overcrowded streets and highways as cars?

We've discussed this before to some extent, and it really does rely a fair bit on hitting the sweet spot with frequency of service and intersection of routes. If you can run a fifteen minute interval service that meets a better-serviced route at the cost of an extra transfer (i.e. a shuttle service) then that removes some uncertainty. If you can run two staggered half-hourly services within a few minutes' walking distance, then you provide failsafe options. It doesn't have to be done with radio beacons and LED displays.

An hourly service on an uncertain timetable serves no-one. It's the equivalent of those random 60-yard stretches of sidewalk on otherwise grass-verged roads. The social pointing of those kind of services is 'be thankful you're getting there some time today', and there are routes and schedules in my area that imply they're for people who have nothing better to do than spend three hours at Wal-Mart or the Goodwill.

When I took the bus regularly in cities well-served by buses, I'd generally have to wait no more than ten minutes between some kind of bus -- I could stay put and know the next bus would put me down five minutes from my preferred stop, or I could walk five minutes to a stop serving another route.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | June 13, 2008 1:50 PM

It doesn't have to be about poor people. I bet plenty of rich parents would be thrilled to teach their teenagers that cars are luxuries to be earned and saved for, not necessities that you get for your 16'th birthday.

Posted by Aatos | June 13, 2008 1:50 PM

Sorry, but this is typical of your simplistic and uninformed analysis of transportation policy.

As opposed to the silly glibertarian boy's bullshit projection of his personal antipathy into a policy stance? Yeah, right.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | June 13, 2008 1:57 PM

The reason bus service isn't better is pretty simple...

If I own a house or a condo, and my floors are shoddy and falling apart and ugly, I'm going to shell out a few thousand dollars to replace them or have them redone. I like having nice floors. They feel better, look better, and I like being able to live in a place where things are in good repair and run efficiently.

On the other hand, if I'm a landlord, and the floors of my units are shoddy and falling apart, I'm not going to fix them unless I can guarantee that repairing them will result in a tangible return on investment making the repair worthwhile in the near term. If I can raise the rent to pay for the repairs, I'll do that, but even that's some trouble. Basically, I'll want to ensure that the floors are acceptable enough to the tenant that the tenant feels its not worth his or her while to complain or move out.

Politicians and, by extension, voters, view public services in their communities like a landlord views his property: the buses are kept going at a rate and at an extent just enough to keep their poor patrons from staging a mass electoral rebellion. Beyond that, what's the payoff? Will nice bus shelters and consistent, frequent schedules provide a tangible payoff in terms of more campaign donations, greater power and influence, or opportunities for higher office for the politicians that support them? Probably not so much.

Yes, one could argue that, like a homeowner, it is a point of pride to live in a community with clean, frequent bus service with good infrastructure, but that's not how Americans and politicians view their communities, so it's not going to happen.

Say what you want about LA's odious Bus Riders' Union, but they take power and use it and make those who don't serve their interests pay the consequences.

Posted by Tyro | June 13, 2008 2:10 PM

In the municipality where I work, they won't allow the building of bus shelters because there is a fear here that vagrants will sleep in them.

Posted by freddiemac | June 13, 2008 2:17 PM

And yet, Mixner, if you put 'more affordable bus service' next to 'marriage promotion incentives' it should be a no-brainer.

In that case, you should have no problem showing, as opposed to merely asserting, that "more affordable bus service" would produce more bang for the buck in helping the poor than "marriage promotion initiatives." (I assume that's the conclusion you consider to be a "no-brainer"). I very much doubt you would be able to do that.

Posted by Mixner | June 13, 2008 2:18 PM

I very much doubt you would be able to do that.

"...because the standard of proof I demand on this topic makes Everest look like a speedbump, so there's really no point in bothering."

What a silly glibertarian boy he is.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | June 13, 2008 2:24 PM

The funny thing is, in wealthy cities like London and Hong Kong and even in poor cities like Lima, the buses run all the time, all over the place. In other words, it's possible to run a bus system that works perfectly well. But US cities generally don't. Why is that?

Posted by Dilan Esper | June 13, 2008 2:26 PM

that's not how Americans and politicians view their communities

That may change as more and more working and middle class residents hop on the bus. By and large you're right though. Short term payoffs have traditionally been the United States' long term strategy. Sad but true.

Saudi saying: "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."

Posted by Roboticghost | June 13, 2008 2:28 PM

In other words, it's possible to run a bus system that works perfectly well. But US cities generally don't. Why is that?

Well, for those cities, the population density actually supports that level of mass transit. I forgot what the name of the suburban Chicago bus system was called but because housing is so far apart, there was insufficient ridership.

Posted by DustPuppyOI | June 13, 2008 2:56 PM

Heeeeyyyy - that bus sign is from Salt Lake City. Imagine my surprise at seeing that in your column! Just in case you wanted to know...

Posted by Jane | June 13, 2008 5:15 PM

In my experience, getting somewhere via a suburban bus system consistently takes three times as long as driving, because you have to walk to the bus stop, wait 5-20 minutes because even though the bus is usually late you can never really count on it, take the bus to your connection, wait for the other bus, take the other bus, and walk to your destination. God help you if you miss one of the buses or you have to make multiple connections. A trip that would take half an hour by car will typically take one and a half or two hours each way.

If there were more routes and more frequent service, so that taking the bus took "only" twice as long as driving rather than three times as long, it greatly improve the mobility of the poor (and those with disabilities that keep them from driving as well).

Posted by Elliot Reed | June 13, 2008 5:50 PM

LA's odious Bus Riders' Union

Tyro, the rest of your post indicates why such a thing sounds like a fine idea (like Tenants advocacy groups). Why do you say this is 'odious'?

Posted by djw | June 13, 2008 8:18 PM

Mixner, have you read the linked article?

"In other words, it's complicated."

Yes it is. So's life. Yet that doesn't mean one crawls into a corner and dies. Likewise. Deal.

See also: slightly smaller tax breaks for multi-multi-millionaires.

I'm envying that Utabus bus stop sign. Here in Philly if I walk down to the bus stop on the corner, the sum total of the information provided is "H". (ie, the H bus stops there). When? How often? In what direction? What number can I call for any of this info? It doesn't know.

Posted by Dan S. | June 13, 2008 9:38 PM