urban transportation: a time for change

Urban Transportation: A Time for ChangeCurrent Issues in Transportation by Alan Altshuler; The Urban Transportation System:Politics and Policy Innovation by Alan Altshuler; James P. Womack; John R. Pucher;Innovation and Public Policy by Catherine G. Burke; Governance of Public Enterprise: A CaseStudy of Urban Mass Transit by Neil W. Hamilton; Peter R. Hamilton; Interstate: ExpressHighway Politics, 1941-1956 by Mark H. Rose; Miles to Go: European and Americ ...Review by: Sheldon M. Edner and Edward WeinerPublic Administration Review, Vol. 42, No. 1 (Jan. - Feb., 1982), pp. 84-89Published by: Wiley on behalf of the American Society for Public AdministrationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/976096 .

Accessed: 14/06/2014 05:14

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Wiley and American Society for Public Administration are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve andextend access to Public Administration Review.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 195.78.108.163 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 05:14:14 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aspa

http://www.jstor.org/stable/976096?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


84 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION REVIEW

BOOK REVIEWS MICHAEL J. WHITE

URBAN TRANSPORTATION: A TIME FOR CHANGE

Sheldon M. Edner, Portland State University Edward Weiner, U.S. Department of Transportation

Current Issues in Transportation, Alan Altshuler, ed., Lexington, Massachusetts: Lexington Books, 1979, pp. 205, cloth.

The Urban Transportation System: Politics and Policy Innovation, Alan Altshuler with James P. Womack and John R. Pucher, Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press, pp. 558, cloth and paper.

Innovation and Public Policy, Catherine G. Burke, Lexing- ton, Massachusetts: Lexington Books, 1979, pp. 401, cloth.

Governance of Public Enterprise: A Case Study of Urban Mass Transit, Neil W. Hamilton and Peter R. Hamilton, Lexington, Massachusetts: Lexington Books, 1981, pp. 152, cloth.

Interstate: Express Highway Politics, 1941-1956, Mark H. Rose, Lawrence, Kansas: The Regents Press of Kansas, 1979, pp. 169, cloth.

Miles To Go: European and American Transportation Policies, James A. Dunn, Jr., Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press, 1981, pp. 202, cloth.

Traditionally, transportation has been the province of engineers and planners. The management focus generally has been limited to project implementation and comple- tion. It is clear, however, that urban transportation is enter- ing a new era. There will be less reliance on developing new technology, capital intensive solutions and massive federal investments. Although long-range issues still will be important, the field will be characterized more by adapting and using the current infrastructure of transportation during this period of transition. For at least the next 20 years, the

The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the policies or the programs of the U.S. Department of Transportation.

automobile will continue to dominate urban transportation. As will be discussed below, public mass transit, such as rapid rail and bus, is not a substitute for the auto. Adapting to the realities of energy, pollution, demography, urban lifestyles, and financial limitations will require a more effective and appropriate mix of current transportation systems. This is partly a technical process, however, it is just as importantly a management process. There are no quick "technological fixes," just shrewd application and management of known technology. It is in this vein that we will indicate where public administration has a role to play in the future of urban transportation.

The Current National Context of Urban Transportation

Within the last few months, national domestic policy has changed or is being changed radically. Transportation policy is certainly not escaping this shift. Major reductions in authorizations for highways, mass transit, airports, and rail systems have been approved. Significant reductions have been made or are contemplated in regulatory and program initiatives across all modes of transportation. Clearly, the nature and extent of federal involvement in transportation is being debated. Private sector initiative and state and local government responsibility are frequently heard watch-

Sheldon M. Edner is an Associate Professor of Political Science and Urban Affairs at Portland State University. He held a NASPAA Faculty Fellowship with the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1980-1981.

Edward Weiner is a Senior Policy Analyst with the Office of Economics and Public Investment, Policy Analysis Division, U.S. Department of Transportation.

JANUARY/FEBRUARY 1982



BOOK REVIEWS 85

words. The reduction in government is not limited solely to spending and personnel. It extends to the complete panoply of programs currently administered by the U.S. Depart- ment of Transportation (DOT). The change in the direction of transportation policy is not surprising. Why such change took so long to occur is!

As an example, federal investment in transportation has been growing steadily over the last two decades. The Carter administration had programmed $24 billion in FY 82 for transportation. Additionally, there were proposals for highways and urban public transportation alone that could have increased funding levels by another $10 billion annual- ly. Needs estimates for the reconstruction and repair of existing highways exceed $250 billion over the next 15 years. Additionally, reconstruction of known deficient bridges on all roadways will exceed $41 billion. It is difficult to im- agine how large federal transportation assistance programs might have become if the current cutbacks had not been in- stituted.

These changes in policies and programs are not without supporters in the transportation community. A number of analysts saw problems with the intensive assistance, heavy federal involvement, and high technology which characterized transportation policy into the 1970s. But they were ignored, even ostracized, by the main transportation community and its supporters. The emphasis of the '70s was on expanding the infrastructure and the supply of fixed route services (a long-term, tried and true approach as we will see below). Transportation facilities, rather than user needs, were the high priority. The current revolution in transportation policy, initiated by the Reagan administration, may not lead to a durable policy answer. Yet, it presents an opportunity to re-examine the transportation promises and initiatives of the past 20 years in light of current knowledge.

What is Transportation Policy?

Fundamentally, urban transportation is mobility for people. Neil and Peter Hamilton suggest that it can be opera- tionalized by measuring the number of passenger trips for work, shopping, and leisure. Yet, this simple sounding approach is far from accurate, at least in terms of how the political system has treated transportation. As Rose points out, beginning in the 1930s, at least two intervening issues modified public policy in this domain: the impact of transportation infrastructure upon urban form, emphasized by urban planners, and the impact of public works expenditures on the economy. From the perspective of the transportation engineers such interventions have been tolerated grudgingly. They have complicated professional and political desires to provide efficient traffic systems responsive to consumer preferences. Indeed, it can be argued, as do Altshuler and Rose, that the highway subsystem, rather than representing a great feat of selling the public on the virtues of highways, has in fact been extreme- ly responsive to the public will. The automobile predates the highway system which, as Rose suggests, lagged behind consumer demand for adequate highways until the implementation of the National System of Interstate and


Defense Highways. In the early 1950s, Project Adequate Roads presented a "unified strategy aimed at winning support for scientific highway finance and planning." This campaign sought to "catch up" with the unfilled demand for adequate highways to eliminate congestion and promote commerce.

It should be noted that even this demand responsive approach was aided by at least one of the interventionist policy approaches noted above. In 1941, President Roosevelt, anticipating the end of WWII called for the design of an Interstate Highway Program which would take up the slack in a recession prone post-war economy. Put- ting people back to work through public works coincided nicely with the intentions of the highway engineers and politicians to increase "insufficient" public expenditures. It also coincided nicely with the interests of contractor associations and materials suppliers who would benefit from such construction. Moreover, the trucking industry, seeking to thwart the railroads, sought highway funding as an aid to increase business. Urban planners seeking to respond to consumer preferences for low-density lifestyles and to promote innercity commerce also found highway funding a convenient vehicle to encourage development. Finally, rural interests, traditionally concerned with farm- to-market transport, saw highway funding as a major in- strument to "get the farmers out of the mud." All of these participants picked up the banner of the economic potential of higher federal highway funding to further their interests.

Highway Transportation

As Altshuler observes, ...it is particularly misleading to think of the American social and political systems, with their extreme pluralism, as having goals. It is far more useful to think of them as having an enormous number of values and a constantly shifting set of priorities among them. (p. 14)

In this context, policy has always been a convenient marriage of contending interests each seeking to manipulate the policy system for its own ends. Highway policy has been no different. Originating in the 1930s, the federal assistance programs for roads have always emphasized funding for- mulas which recognized the concerns of urban, rural, and other cross-cutting interests. In sum, the continuity of policy has been in the federal funds rather than in the pur- pose of the transportation policy. The professional highway engineers, who have sought to keep the focus on mobility, have been adept at doing their job by appealing to the common thread across all those interests-the need to build something- and they have done it well.

With the passage of the National Interstate and Highway Defense System Highway Act of 1956, this marriage of convenience was sanctified. The highway policy subsystem, which, although influential, had never been closely united, found a program it could get its teeth into. With a secure revenue source, the Highway Trust Fund, and a legitimate cause, building highways for commerce and national defense, the highway community set about doing its job. For 14 years they dominated American mobility via a




highway system which conformed to both the technological fascination with the auto and the inherent cultural disposi- tion of Americans to maximize personal freedom. Again, as Altshuler observes,

Though acting separately, consumers have made their modal choice decisions over the decades within a common framework of culture and public policy. Culturally American urban residents have always sought, within the limits set by their incomes and the speed of available modes of commutation, to combine key elements of the rural lifestyle with their urban means of earning a livelihood. In particular, they have sought low-density living in single-family homes on generous, privately owned plots of land. The poor, who in many cultures squat on the fringes of urban development, have tended to occupy the older, high density areas close to the core. (p. 22)

The Rise of Social Consciousness

The tranquility of the highway community was shattered in the late 1960s. New issues questioned both the assump- tions underlying the convenient marriage, and America's ability to continue support for its transportation preferences. Air pollution, safety, neighborhood disruption, energy shortages, the demands of the mobility disadvantaged, and the decline of the transit industry led to serious questions about the dominance of automobile transportation. The initial reponse was the "freeway revolt" and increased support for mass transit. One conse- quence was the passage of the Urban Mass Transportation Act Amendments of 1974 which initiated federal transit operating assistance.

Transit quickly became the panacea for urban transportation problems and even many urban ills. It was thereby able to, at least for a short time, stave off its critics, even though its promises as a solution to problems quickly fell apart in the eyes of some analysts (see the Melvin Webber article in the Altshuler reader). More importantly, it suc- ceeded in accomplishing what Altshuler identifes as a major feature of American politics, it grafted itself on to the accepted priorities of the policy system. The political system as a whole seems to strive for inclusiveness and broad support rather than for theoretical consistency or elegance. That is, it seeks to accommodate new demands as they emerge by means, insofar as possible, that leave previous set- tlements (programs and administrative arrangements) undisturb- ed, that involve the least possible disruption for private enter- prises, and that involve the least possible inconvenience and an- noyance for individuals who have built their lifestyles around the expectation of system stability. (p. 11)

Paralleling rather than supplanting the highway subsystem, the transit subsystem sought to build a political base and claim for its demands. Bolstered by the troubles of highways and auto use, the transit industry was able to create its own legitimacy with manufacturers, contractors, city political representatives, and to some extent with the public. As Burke points out, this renewed legitimacy quickly led to the same intransigence to change that typified the highway lobby during the 1960s. The transit community in- sisted on the legitimacy of existing technology, bus and rapid rail systems, and sought to adapt it to the urban scene

of the 1970s. In Burke's view, the transit paradigm still reflected the image of private bus companies but with the ability to tap the public purse for resources. In this context, it sought not only to wrest resources from highways but to prevent the growth of new pretenders to the throne through technological innovation, i.e., Personal Rapid Transit (PRT).' The transit industry had become remarkably resis- tant to new ideas and innovations both in management approaches and new technology.

Unfortunately for the transit industry, the marriage of convenience between city interests, contractors, transit agencies and auto critics never achieved the political breath and strength of the highway community. The transit coali- tion although powerful, came into existence too late. Highways were too dominant. Development patterns had accommodated to highway travel. Transit had declined too far and seemed unable to adapt to the challenge. Politicians slowly became disenchanted with the rapidly increasing demands of transit for funds. And transit did not have the broad geographic and "pork barrel" base of support of the highway program. Transit assistance was distributed to too few places to support its new found resurgence.

Perhaps more fundamentally, however, transit, particularly rail transit, just didn't meet the goals promised by its advocates. As Melvin Webber points out concerning the much vaunted BART system, air pollution reduction, land- use impacts, economic development, and congestion reduction objectives have clearly not been met in the San Fran- cisco Bay region. In fact, a credible argument can be made that the political and economic forces which produced the development in the region also caused the construction of the rapid rail system, rather than the development being caused by the rail system.

The failure of transit to produce a substitute for the auto and a cure for the ills associated with it is clear. Transit has attracted little ridership away from the auto. But also, public transportation was sold as a means of providing quality service not only to those trapped in their autos, but also to those not able to partake of the auto culture, the poor, elderly, and handicapped. In the case of these disadvantaged groups it had failed. As Altshuler indicates, the poor have paid more than their "fair" share of transit costs. The traditional flat rate structures of transit systems levy higher per mile costs on inner city residents while sub- sidizing suburban commuters. Further, the fixed route structure of transit systems has focused predominantly on the suburban commuter while justifying itself as providing service for the inner city resident. Retrofitting requirements and add-ons for the handicapped would have cost the transit industry $6 billion, a cost transit was unwilling and unable to bear.

More important, however, was the implicit philosophy of service underlying the transit concept. Once transit became emeshed in the social issues of the urban core, it lost its traditional user perspective. Instead of responding to demand, transit systems were justified on their ability to shape demand and urban form. This was legitimized by the intervention of environmental and energy issues. In order to resolve these issues, a change in consumer behavior was necessary. No longer could freedom of choice be accepted,




BOOK REVIEWS 87

it had to be manipulated using automobile restraints and pricing schemes. It was only a short step from this view, to the reindustrialization perspective of the late 1970s. Urban transportation investments would be used not only for transportation improvements, but also to repair urban decay.

While coming under the influence of interests concerned with reshaping urban lifestyles, transit also sought to protect its principal service, fixed routes. Abetted by labor unions, transit agencies resisted the development of "paratransit" (carpools, vanpools, shared ride taxi, demand responsive transit, etc.)' This flexibile form of transportation would have mitigated some of the auto system excesses and better served the decentralized post- war pattern of travel without the need for capital intensive construction programs or massive operating subsidies. Although paratransit has not been a universal success, it has produced some positive results in providing service alternatives to the auto in lower density markets without massive infrastructure costs. The basis for its success has been its ability to respond to the individual choices of transportation users.

As the authors reviewed here unanimously suggest, the auto succeeds because it responds to the fundamental cultural and socio-economic preferences of the public. Traditional mass transit does not, even if it once did. Burke suggests that it is possible for capital intensive transit to do this but it requires a "paradigmatic revolution" in thinking to which conventional transit agencies are not capable of responding. One alternative, PRT, builds upon individual transportation choices within a technological framework which supports such choice. However, it may be that the failure of PRT to find a following is attributable to more than the resistance of traditional transit agencies emphasized by Burke. PRT also exhibited bad timing by surfacing during a period when new capital investments and technolgical experiments were not being well received by political officials already burned by the political reaction to highways, transit, and increasing governmental budgets. Other analysts suggest, however, that PRT never would have lived up to the expectations of its promoters: it may be another panacea in search of a problem.

New Directions

The decade of the '80s provides some interesting oppor- tunities for redirection of the transportation system. The traditional approach of capital intensive solutions to transportation problems in urban areas has fallen on hard times. We are no longer building urban highways, with the exception of isolated links. The promises of traditional mass transit have not materialized. Yet we have not escaped the problems that have gotten us to this point. Mobility, energy, environment, transportation disadvantaged, urban decay, and related issues are still with us. Nor do we see a general philosophy or conceptual approach to transportation policy. We have indeed continued to produce policy responses in a piecemeal, add-on fashion. Moreover, the villain of our story, the automobile, perhaps overly vilified,


will be with us at least for the next 20 years.3 Finally, with the glue, federal asisstance, that held disparate coalitions together in support of the highway and transit subsystems declining, these subsystems are becoming more exposed to political control by what Burke calls the macropolitical system. They are not taking this reconstruction of the political arena lightly. The highway community is attempting to make its traditional political base hold together by retreading itself as a highway rehabilitation organization. Such rehabilitation is necessary to protect sunk investment in capital facilities and to continue the response to the auto system. Transit supporters, not as well entrenched as their highway counterparts, are attempting the same stonewall tactic but without the security of a protected revenue source or as much in the way of sunk costs. In some ways less willing than their highway counterparts to accept change, as Burke suggests, they have been reluctant to adapt to the reality of contemporary urban transportation. The highway people know they will have to change and are doing it grudgingly, accepting such things as Interstate substitutions and the use of other highway trust funds for mass transit purposes, Transportation System Management (TSM) and joint planning requirements. Without the same conviction that their hard won gains will be here tomorrow, the transit community is less willing to reshape itself.

The issues with which both these communities must con- tend are aptly summarized by Altshuler and Burke. Transportation policy must accept a less capital intensive approach, a greater willingness to experiment with short term, integrative approaches to multimodalism, and less of a predisposition toward quick technological fixes. Most importantly, however, as Altshuler clearly shows, the transportation policy of the future will need to recognize the fundamental behavioral forces which have produced the transportation system we now have. Much of this will come not from experimenting with transportation as a subset of techniques for solving urban problems but in treating transportation as a unique policy field with a specific mission. That mission, as Neil and Peter Hamilton point out, is serving passenger trips. Mobility, however, must conform to the unique facets of the cultural and political arena in which it exists, the American predisposition for personal freedom through mobility. This cultural predisposition, however, is being challenged by a larger set of forces which implies that there are limits to personal choice; energy shortages, resource limitations, environmental degradation, and the needs of the transportation disadvantaged. There will be a continuing need to integrate transportation planning with urban development. Joint planning also provides opportunity to improve urban efficiency and the quality of urban life. There are, however, some fundamental forces at work which may change the en- tire realm of transportation. As Ithiel de Sola Pool suggests, in the Altshuler reader, technological advances in communications may greatly alter the need for transportation. Moreover, as social values changes, there may be an accompanying change in lifestyle and travel preferences.

Another perspective on urban transportation is provided by Dunn. His analysis of the European and American ex- periences with transportation identifies a major con-




tributing role of political values and centralized political authority. As he notes:

Europeans tend to have a different image of the ultimate social meaning of transportation than Americans. While they recognize the need for efficient methods of moving people and goods from one location to another, they are in general not as enraptured by the very process of motion as Americans. (p. 165) He notes that the notion of the "market" in transportation policy does not have the same strength and sanctity as it has had in the United States. Hence, policy has not been as complicated by the need to maintain procedural fairness for affected parties. Further, the use of the central government authority to design and implement transportation policy is more fundamentally acceptable in Europe. Dunn is careful to suggest that European policy may not be smarter or better. Rather, he suggests that the current European approach may provide valuable lessons for American policy makers in responding to the current malaise of urban transportation policy.

Nevertheless, while the process of paradigm revision and the specifics of the programs will necessarily be complex, the general thrust of what the European experience can contribute to the American policy debate is simple. It can be summarized in three main directives (1) use authority authoritatively, (2) use markets creatively, and (3) use transportation sparingly. (p. 169)

In effect, the assumption of the material here is fundamentally that the short run future of transportation policy is one of management of existing programs and infrastructure in a creative and effective fashion. The two Altshuler books seem to recognize this fundamental point most clearly. The transportation community has ex- perimented with some innovative approaches to transportation service delivery. TSM for example, attempts to find short term, non-capital intensive approaches to effective transportation system performance. Paratransit provides flexible service delivery without capital intensive solutions. The question is what organizational and administrative approaches will extend and improve these beginnings. The Hamiltons suggest that the answers lie in defining the public transportation task in a narrow and precise way. From this departure point, organizations will be created which can function with business-like efficiency. The problem is that the field has attempted to do this already in the form of the transit and highway subsystems. By maintain- ing a rigid, technological definition of the field they have resisted change. Adaptation may not, however, require the attention to cultural and ideological modification that Dunn flirts with in suggesting that the U.S. evaluate the European policy approaches. As Colcord notes in the Altshuler reader, transportation policies are a product of fundamental ideological norms. Personal choice is deeply ingrained in the American auto dominated system. We are not likely to change that short of developing governmental policies that call into question the underlying political value system of our democracy. As Altshuler notes, What does seem clear is that the major problems of urban transportation can be effectively addressed without significant behavioral change. A prolonged embargo or war induced oil shor- tage may, of course, at some point require dramatic short-term

behavioral adaptation (mainly, we judge, by the curtailment of nonessential auto travel and by private ridesharing). But aside from such unforeseeable crises of a political nature, there do not appear to be any developments on the horizon that would require urban Americans to alter their patterns or volumes of automobile travel. (p. 471)

The Mangement of Transportation Systems

Burke and Dunn suggest the need for a "paradigmatic" revolution in transportation policy. Altshuler, on the other hand, suggests the need for tailoring transportation systems to the reality of urban lifestyles and transportation preferences. Both points of view are probably correct. The highway and transit lobbies need to break out of their one dimensional thinking. The governmental policy process has to treat transportation more as a mixed mode process of mobility rather than curing all urban ills simultaneously. Accomplishing both of these tasks requires the recognition of three ideas:

a. urban transportation requires a balanced policy effort in terms of both short and long time frames and the use of capital and non-capital intensive approaches;

b. transportation is really a mixed market economy with a need for public/private joint enterprise; c. individual transportation preferences can be chan- neled but not radically altered.

In this context, the tools and techniques of public administration can be particularly helpful in guiding innovations, service delivery, financing mechanisms, intergovern- mental coordination, and more clearly developing the prin- ciples of public involvement in transportation.

In terms of innovation there are at least four areas which need particular attention: the mix of public and private involvement; the more effective assessment and management of technology; the development and training of managerial personnel, and the design and implementation of new organizational approaches to transportation systems. With the exception of technology, the transportation community has only just begun to experiment in these areas. As Burke notes, technological development has been a major effort in both highways and transit. Such developments, however, often have demonstrated "wrongheaded" beneficent technocracy rather than adaptation to travel demand and preference.

Service delivery improvements will come from the design of flexibile mixed modal systems which tap both market potential and creative public management strategies. There is a good deal of sunk cost in the transportation infrastructure. This infrastructure will need to be maintained and managed to promote its full utilization. Demand responsive systems will need to be integrated with fixed route systems rather than selecting one over the other. Criteria for the determination of cost and socially effective transportation systems must be developed. Organizational models capable of responding to limited resources with innovative delivery approaches are needed. It is clear that the current cadre of




BOOK REVIEWS 89

transportation professionals has only just begun to wrestle with these issues.

Financing transportation systems and investments is clearly past the gravy train stage. Maintenance costs are increasing at astronomical rates while revenue sources are becoming overtaxed. Even the much vaunted Highway Trust Fund will be adequate for completing the interstate system only if the remaining unconstructed portion of the system is reduced in scope. As federal operating assistance is phased out, transit properties will increasingly be forced to develop new revenue sources. Further, the traditional perception that auto and truck users of highways have ade- quately paid for the benefits they have received is being challenged. In sum, new revenue sources, better fiscal management, and better pricing of the transportation system all need attention.

The transportation system has always been an in- tergovernmental partnership. Highways have been a federal/state province for many years. Urban government involvement in highway decision-making was established only in 1974. Transit has been a federal/local relationship for the most part but the states have increasingly become in- volved in this area.4 The whole array of decision-making systems and responsibilities is being rearranged by the current administration. Better relationships, administrative mechanisms and realignment of decision-making responsibilities are likely to be the focus for the next ten years.

Finally, the public role in transportation is undergoing some radical reformulation. At the national level, transportation policy in large measure is being formulated through the budget process. Clearly, there is a need to confront more directly what the public role, at the federal, state, and local levels, ought to be and how it can be integrated with the private sector.


Much has been accomplished in urban transportation. The material reviewed here representes a comprehensive overview of the political, adminstrative and policy aspects of urban transportation, specifically highways and mass transit. Cumulatively they suggest a greater role for the tools and techniques of public administration. Much of this role has yet to be defined, although the environment of urban transportation is ripe for its application. It is clear that there are still "miles to go."

Notes

1. Burke uses a definition of Personal Rapid Transit drawn from the work of the Stanford Research Institute. Small vehicles, traveling over exclusive rights-of-way, automatically routed from origin to destination over a network guideway system, primarily to service low-to-medium popula- tion density areas of a metropolis (p. 102). In effect, PRT uses vehicles approximately the size of the auto in a fixed route system but places discretion and control with the computer rather than a human driver. Take PRT and leave the driving to us.

2. A precise definition of paratransit has never really been achieved. It can mean any form of transportation between the single passenger auto and fixed route transit. Its main advan- tage lies in pooling ridership while avoiding the structure of a traditional fixed route system (e.g., carpools, vanpools, jit- neys, dial-a-ride).

3. Edward Weiner, "The Future for the Automobile in the U.S." (Forthcoming, Transport Policy and Decisionmaking).

4. See Fred Williams, States in Public Transportation: An Analy- sis Based on Nine Case Studies, Urban Mass Transportation Administration, Office of Program Evaluation, Report No. UMTA-MA-060109-81-2.



urban transportation: a time for change

Documents