Mass Transit Makes a Comeback

By Susan Tifft

New subways and light-rail systems whoosh off drawing boards

Near dawn one nippy day last November, several dozen sleepy citizens of Baltimore gathered at the new Reisterstown Plaza station just northwest of downtown. After seven years of jackhammered streets and more than a quarter-century of discussion and planning, they were eager to board the city's gleaming new subway for its first passenger run. Just past 5 a.m., the shiny silver-and-blue Metro cars, built at a cost of $600,000 each, whooshed into view. Marveled Mark Miller, a radio announcer who had risen at 3:30 to catch the inaugural trip: "It was a dream come true."

Mass transit is on the move. Baltimore's sparkling Metro is just the most recent result of a boom in urban rail-system construction. "There is more development going on now than in the past 100 years," exults Jack Gilstrap, executive vice president of the American Public Transit Association (A.P.T.A.). Since 1972, when San Francisco cut the ribbon on its high-tech headache, BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit), six other U.S. cities have opened new rail systems. Six cities currently have lines under construction. Thirteen other systems either have been proposed or are on the drawing boards.

Part of the allure of these new networks is, simply, prestige. "I call it the Hyatt Regency mentality," says David Prosperi, assistant professor of planning at the University of Cincinnati. "Many cities think they have to have a rail system to be a first-class city." Underneath the arriviste attitude, however, lies a persistent conviction, not always well placed, that mass transit can reduce congestion in traffic-choked downtowns, spark commercial growth and control pollution. Says A.P.T.A.'S Gilstrap: "When businesses decide where to locate, they look for a city that works well. Good mass transit is both evidence and a symbol of that."

Much of the present flurry has its origins in the 1973 Arab oil embargo, which persuaded many motorists to flee long gas lines for less frustrating subways and buses. The mounting energy crisis also spurred the Federal Government to provide up to 50% of transit systems' operating costs. Until then, money had been available only for capital and planning assistance. One result of this increased federal largesse was an investment spree in capital-intensive projects such as subways and electrified rail. There were some less benign results: fares well under the actual cost of service, leading inevitably to big operating deficits, and growing dependence on Washington for mass-transit support. In 1975, the first fiscal year in which operating subsidies were available, capital grants totaled $1.28 billion and operating grants totaled $142.5 million. By 1981 those figures had ballooned to $2.94 billion and $1.13 billion respectively. "From a local standpoint, federal mass-transit aid is cheap," says Gerald Miller, acting director of the transportation program at the Urban Institute, a Washington, D.C.--based think tank. "You can put up a couple of hundred million dollars and get billions back."

Baltimore got the message. A full 80% of the whopping $797 million price tag for the system's initial eight-mile leg was paid for with federal dollars. Yet despite the expense, the spanking new Baltimore Metro is a no-frills affair. Its 58 spartan cars have linoleum floors and plastic seats for easy cleaning. The only obvious nonessential is $600,000 worth of federally subsidized modern art, including one billboard-size neon sculpture, that decorates each of the nine stations.

Cities like Atlanta climbed aboard early on. From 1972 through 1978, the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA) received a staggering $990.1 million in federal planning and capital assistance for its sleek new subway system. The first seven-mile segment, connecting the affluent suburb of Avondale with downtown, opened in 1979. By next December, approximately 25 miles of the proposed 53-mile system will be operational, and two key destinations--the city's bustling airport in the south and Lenox Square, the region's most successful shopping plaza, in the north--will be only 13 minutes apart. "You couldn't drive that distance in that short a period of time at 2 in the morning," boasts MARTA General Manager Kenneth Gregor. "When we finish building our rail system in the next few years, Atlanta will have the best transportation network of any city in this country."

He may be right. A remarkable 40% of the city's commuters use the smooth-riding, French-built aluminum trains, which are graffiti-free and 99% on time. The 4,500 or so buses that previously clogged downtown Atlanta have been rerouted so that most now feed into subway stations, eliminating in large part the city's morning and evening traffic snarl.

The undisputed monument of the newly constructed transit systems is the Washington, D.C., Metro. Compared with New York City's grimy trains and Dantesque tunnels, the system is immaculate and refreshingly polite. Gently flashing lights herald a train's arrival; soft chimes signal its departure. The entire computer-operated 328-car fleet is carpeted, and seats are padded. Work crews doggedly remove graffiti every night. With their majestic vaulted ceilings, the system's 32 underground stations resemble modernistic cathedrals.

Metro's first 4.6-mile leg opened, appropriately enough, during the nation's Bicentennial year. By last month, when four new Virginia stops were added, the system increased to 47 miles. Daily ridership now is 310,000, up 290,000 since 1975. The system's showcase sheen, however, was largely bought with federal funds, which have underwritten nearly 80% of Metro's $5 billion construction costs thus far. Moreover, Metro's eye-popping operating deficit, the bulk of which must be borne by the area's taxpayers, totaled $61 million in 1983 and is expected to double in three years. That could spell trouble for the tracks. Critics are already pushing for a pruning of the system's planned 101-mile length.

In many cities where rail systems are still under construction, however, an all-aboard enthusiasm prevails. Indeed, a radio producer in Pittsburgh ran into a major problem last November when he tried to hold an on-air debate on that city's rail-building and -refurbishing project: he could not find anyone opposed to it. By next Thanksgiving, the first of the system's fleet of light-rail cars is scheduled to start rumbling along a 1.1-mile run under the center city; a 9.4-mile aboveground segment connecting downtown to Pittsburgh's South Hills suburbs is expected to open in 1985. So far, local taxpayers have escaped all but 3% of the estimated $480 million in costs; the state and the Federal Government are picking up the rest. Says James Maloney, former executive director of the Port Authority Transit of Allegheny County: "We expect people to convert to public transit for the first time in their lives."

Buffalo also hopes to lure new riders with its 6.4-mile Light Rail Rapid Transit (LRRT) system, an unconventional marriage of streetcar and subway technologies that is costing $500 million from state and federal treasuries. The initial 1.2-mile street-level segment, scheduled to open some time this year, will cut through a ten-block-long mall in the city's central commercial district that will be closed to most other traffic. Trips within the transit mall will be free, giving shoppers an incentive to patronize downtown businesses.

Relying on updated versions of traditional trolleys is not limited to older cities. In Oregon, Portland's 15-mile light-rail line linking the city's downtown core to the fast-growing suburb of Gresham is expected to be ready for riding in 1985. The Federal Government has funded $300 million of the project's $310 million capital costs, thanks in large measure to the lobbying efforts of Neil Goldschmidt, former Portland mayor and Secretary of Transportation under President Carter. Despite Washington's munificence, Portland, with an unpopular mass-transit tax on employers and a noisy constituency of diehard automobile fans, has taken pains to economize: once they leave downtown, the trains will speed along an existing right-of-way parallel to the humming Banfield Freeway.

Not all new transit projects are on track, however. The initial elevenmile stretch of Metrorail, Miami's elevated railway, was scheduled to open in time to whisk Christmas shoppers to downtown Miami. Now the big day has been postponed until spring. Two federal investigative teams turned up substandard construction work in the nearly $1 billion system, which is almost 70% funded by Washington. Because of a lengthy strike at the supplier, the Budd Co., only 20 of Metrorail's planned fleet of 136 cars are ready for service. "We're not going to accept this thing until it's totally right," declares Dade County Manager Merrett Stierheim. That moment will come none too soon. Traffic inches along 1-95, the area's main thoroughfare, six hours of the day, and downtown parking rates run as high as $6 for three hours. Despite the poor start, Metrorail still expects to open its second segment, a ten-mile extension to the largely Cuban community of Hialeah, on time this year. In addition, Miami is planning to have by 1985 a 1.9-mile-long "people mover"--automated trains that will shuttle 41,000 commuters daily in a loop around the city's developing downtown.

In the automobile-dominated West, seven major transit systems are planned or proposed. Among the most ambitious cities: Los Angeles, which plans to break ground before the Summer Olympics for an 18-mile, $3.3 billion subway that will follow the densely built, heavily trafficked Wilshire Boulevard corridor, cut through Hollywood and end up hi the San Fernando Valley. The underground will be the centerpiece of an eventual 160-mile network, second in size in the U.S. only to New York City's. Supporters see the rail plan as the last best hope for unclogging the city's fabled 715-mile morass of freeways. Predicts George Gibbs Jr., a local insurance executive and rail cheerleader: "The subway will save Los Angeles from drowning in its own congestion."

Even humming Silicon Valley is planning a new transit system. This spring, Santa Clara County will begin construction of 20 miles of light rail and twelve miles of new freeway. The project's $382 million price tag is modest by mass-transit standards, in part because the system does not strive to be as high-tech as the computer culture it will serve. Says Susan Wilson, chairwoman of the Santa Clara County Transit District: "We're looking for a good Chevrolet, not a Cadillac."

Indeed, concern for function over form is advisable. The federal gravy train is slowing down. The Reagan Administration, which is cool to mass transit, initially declared a ban on funding for new rail systems and sought to phase out operating assistance by 1985. Pork-barrel-hungry Congressmen, however, objected to both moves. With the passage of the 5-c--per-gal. gasoline tax, and its one penny for mass transit, the Administration agreed to lift the ban. But Reagan did persuade Congress to whittle operating subsidies by 21%, and in this fiscal year alone won an overall $400 million cut in capital spending. The gas tax raised $779 million for mass transit in its first year, and is projected to produce about $1.1 billion annually. But only about $400 million will be earmarked for mass transit. The competition for the dwindling dollars will be fierce. "If a system can pay for itself, that will enhance its chances," advises Urban Mass Transportation Administration (UMTA) Chief Ralph Stanley.

Cost considerations are giving some localities pause. Last summer Houston voters resoundingly rejected a $2.35 billion bond issue for mass transit, despite the fact that it would have meant no new taxes for the first leg. As a result, the city lost all but $5.5 million of the $110 million in federal aid it had been allocated from the gas-tax fund, and its proposed 18-mile heavy-rail system appears to be on permanent hold. "It's a humbling experience to take a licking like we did," admits Alan Kiepper, general manager of Houston's Metropolitan Transit Authority. Houstonians were simply unconvinced that a costly rail line was the answer to their legendary traffic jams. The defeat was also a protest against the highhanded attitude of the local transit board, which had purchased $139 million worth of Japanese rail cars three months before the bond-issue vote.

By looking to the past, at least one town has validated Reagan's philosophy of local self-reliance: San Diego. When the city's 16-mile line of trolleys was completed in 1981, it was on schedule, under budget and funded entirely from state gas and sales taxes.* Dubbed the "Tijuana Trolley" because the line ends 100 ft. from the Mexican border, the bright red streetcars have attracted 4,000 more riders per day than originally projected. Fares, which can go as high as $1 for a full-run ride and are collected on an honor system, cover a remarkable 80% of operating costs. Says Dick Murphy, chairman of San Diego's Metropolitan Transit Development Board: "Give people a system that is reliable, frequent and reasonable, and they will jump on board."

The trolley's triumph has inspired nostalgic visions. New York City is considering restoring trolley service as part of its redevelopment of 42nd Street. San Francisco is overhauling its emblematic fleet of cable cars.

Despite the scramble for new systems, the benefits of mass transit are not always clear. In San Francisco, BART has not appreciably shortened the rush hour. The record for turning blighted downtowns into boom towns is equally spotty. Although citizens may live in apartment complexes clustered around new subway stops, they are no more likely to go to the center city to shop than to a nearby suburban shopping mall.

But transit, like a football team or a domed stadium, bolsters civic pride.

For transit's typical patrons -- the elderly and the poor, who have no alternative way to travel -- a city's buses, subways and trolleys are essential and affordable lifelines. Moreover, the indirect benefits of subways and rail systems, like those flowing from schools and fire departments, accrue to everyone. "We have to ask ourselves where we would be without it," says Edmund Adams, president of the Southwest Ohio Regional Transportation Authority. "As a society, we would not be moving people to their jobs, or the elderly or handicapped to their destinations."

Public-spiritedness, however, does not pay the bills. In cities with large fixed systems, federal belt tightening has already begun to be felt in fare hikes. Ironically, the higher tabs could make things worse by reducing ridership and causing deeper transit deficits. This month the price of a token in New York City's crime-plagued subway system rose from 75-c- to 90-c-, despite studies showing that each 5-c- increase lowers ridership 1%. In some cities, like San Bernardino, Calif., businesses have tried to take up the slack by offering discounts to transit travelers, with uneven success. "Nothing will substantially increase ridership," says Pierre de Vise, a public administration professor at Chicago's Roosevelt University. "The only solution is for mass transit to control its losses."

Despite transit's best efforts, most Americans, especially in the Sunbelt, both live and work outside inner cities in places where public transportation is nearly nonexistent. Only 6.4% of the nation's workers ride transit systems to their jobs. "Fixed systems in these newer sprawl cities are really bucking the tide of demographics and economics," warns the Urban Institute's Miller. Indeed, according to a 1980 study for UMTA, only four cities are serious candidates for new rapid-transit systems: Honolulu, Houston, Los Angeles and Seattle. America's far-flung living habits were partly created by its love affair with the car. Likewise, glistening new transit systems, like those in Baltimore and Atlanta, may point people in a different direction. Says Selwyn Enzer, a University of Southern California futurist: "As much as the auto and the freeway shaped our cities, mass transit has the capacity to change them again." -- By Susan Tifft. Reported by Jay Branegan/Washington and Richard Woodbury/ Los Angeles, with other bureaus

* Technically, the cars are not trolleys because they do not operate on conventional trolley poles and wheels.

With reporting by Jay Branegan/Washington and Richard Woodbury/ Los Angeles, with other bureaus