, Volume 42, Issue 2, pp 347–367 | Cite as

Public transportation objectives and rider demographics: are transit’s priorities poor public policy?

  • Brian D. Taylor
  • Eric A. MorrisEmail author


Strong public and political support for mass transit in the U.S. is based on lofty goals, including congestion reduction, economic development, aesthetics, sustainability, and much more. Yet, as is the case in many areas of public policy, the pursuit of multiple and broad objectives, however worthy, can diffuse efforts and fail to achieve desired results. Moreover, these goals suggest a lack of focus on the needs of transit riders themselves, particularly the poor and transit dependent. We examine this by combining data from the National Household Travel Survey, the National Transit Database, the American Public Transportation Association, and a survey we conducted of 50 U.S. transit operators. First, we find that while rail transit riders in the aggregate are approximately as wealthy as private vehicle travelers, bus patrons have far lower incomes, and this disparity is growing over time. Second, few transit agencies publicly identify serving the poor or minorities as a goal, instead focusing on objectives that appeal to more affluent riders and voters as a whole. Finally, in recent decades transit spending priorities have been slanted away from bus service and towards commuter-oriented rail services favored by the wealthier general voting public, although most members of this group rarely if ever ride transit. We contend that efforts to secure popular support for transit subsidies stifle agencies’ ability to acknowledge transit’s critical social service function and serve the needs of its core demographic. While such strategies make sense politically, underserving the poor may be poor public policy.


Goal ambiguity Transit goals Transit subsidies Transit patronage Transit rider demographics 



The authors thank Kendra Breiland, Sandra O'Flaherty, John Gahbauer, and Michelle Go for their research assistance, and Joseph Issa and Nikki Navio for editorial assistance.


  1. American Public Transportation Association: Public transportation takes us there. (2012a). Accessed 8 July 2012
  2. American Public Transportation Association: 2012 Public Transportation Fact Book Appendix A: Historical Tables. American Public Transportation Association, Washington D.C. (2012a)Google Scholar
  3. American Public Transportation Association: 2012 Public Transportation Fact Book. American Public Transportation Association, Washington D.C. (2012b)Google Scholar
  4. Baldwin, J.N.: Public versus private: not that different, not that consequential. Public Pers. Manag. 16(2), 181–193 (1987)Google Scholar
  5. Barton, A.H.: A diagnosis of bureaucratic maladies. In: Weiss, C.H., Barton, A.H. (eds.) Making Bureaucracies Work, pp. 27–36. Sage, Beverly Hills (1980)Google Scholar
  6. Boyne, G.A.: What is public service improvement? Public Adm. 81(2), 211–227 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brown, J.: Race, class, gender, and public transportation planning: lessons from the Bus Riders Union lawsuit. Crit. Plan. 5, 3–20 (1998)Google Scholar
  8. Cervero, R.: Examining recent transit fare innovations in the U.S. Transp. Policy Decis. Mak. 3(1), 23–41 (1985)Google Scholar
  9. Cervero, R.: Transit pricing research. Transportation 17(2), 117–139 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cervero, R., Brunk, J.: Intergovernmental goals for public transit. J. Adv. Transp. 17(1), 27–49 (1983)Google Scholar
  11. Chun, Y.H., Rainey, H.G.: Goal ambiguity and organizational performance in U.S. federal agencies. J. Public Adm. Res. Theory 15(4), 529–557 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dahl, R.A., Lindbloom, C.E.: Politics, Economics, and Welfare. Harper Collins, New York (1953)Google Scholar
  13. Dewatripont, M., Jewitt, I., Tirole, J.: The economics of career concerns, part II: application to missions and accountability of government agencies. Rev. Econ. Stud. 66(1), 199–217 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Drucker, P.F.: The deadly sins in public administration. Public Adm. Rev. 40(2), 103–106 (1980)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fearnley, N.: Public transport subsidies in the UK: evidence of distributional effects. World Transp. Policy Pract. 12(1), 31–40 (2006)Google Scholar
  16. Fielding, G.J.: Changing Objectives for American Transit. University of California Irvine Institute of Transportation Studies, Irvine CA (1982)Google Scholar
  17. Flyvbjerg, B., Skamris Holm, M.K., Buhl, S.L.: How common and how large are cost overruns in transport infrastructure projects? Transp. Rev. 23(1), 71–88 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Garcia, R., Rubin, T.: Crossroad blues: The MTA consent decree and just transportation. In: Lucas, K. (ed.) Running on Empty: Transport, Social Exclusion, and Environmental Justice, pp. 221–256. The Policy Press, Bristol U.K. (2004)Google Scholar
  19. Garrett, M., Taylor, B.D.: Reconsidering social equity in public transit. Berkeley Plan. J. 13, 6–27 (1999)Google Scholar
  20. Giuliano, G.: Low income, public transit, and mobility. Transp. Res. Rec. 1927, 63–70 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Grengs, J.: The abandoned social goals of public transit in the neoliberal city of the USA. City 9(1), 51–66 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Grengs, J.: Community-based planning as a source of social change: the transit equity movement of Los Angeles’ Bus Riders Union. J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 68(2), 165–178 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hensher, D.A.: A bus-based transitway or light rail? Continuing the saga on choice versus blind commitment. Road Transp. Res. 8(3), 3–20 (1999)Google Scholar
  24. Hensher, D.A., Waters, W.G.: Light rail and bus priority systems: choice or blind commitment? Res. Transp. Econ. 3, 139–162 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hickson, D.J., Butler, R.J., Cray, D., Mallory, G.R., Wilson, D.C.: Top Decisions: Strategic Decision-Making in Organizations. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco (1986)Google Scholar
  26. Jones, D.: Urban Transit Policy: An Economic and Political History. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs NJ (1985)Google Scholar
  27. Lago, A., Mayworm, P.: Transit means business: a corporate planning approach to transit fare and service planning. Transp. Q. 36(3), 335–350 (1982)Google Scholar
  28. Lowi, T.: The End of Liberalism: Ideology, Policy, and the Crisis of Public Authority. Norton, New York (1969)Google Scholar
  29. Lynn, L.E.: Managing the Public’s Business. Basic Books, New York (1981)Google Scholar
  30. March, J.G., Olsen, J.P.: Ambiguity and Choice in Organizations. Universiteforlaget, Bergen (1976)Google Scholar
  31. Meyer, M.W.: Change in Public Bureaucracies. Cambridge University Press, London (1979)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. O’Toole, R.: A desire named streetcar: how federal subsidies encourage wasteful local transit systems. Cato Institute, Washington, D.C. (2006)Google Scholar
  33. Pandey, S.K., Rainey, H.G.: Public managers perceptions of organizational goal ambiguity: analyzing alternative models. Int. Public Manag. J. 9(2), 85–112 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pickrell, D.H.: A desire named streetcar: fantasy and fact in rail transit planning. J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 58(2), 158–176 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Pisarski, A.: Livability and all that. (2010). Accessed 26 Apr 2012
  36. Pitt, D.C., Smith, B.C.: Government Departments: An Organizational Perspective. Routledge & Kegan Paul, London (1981)Google Scholar
  37. Pucher, J.: Equity in transit finance: distribution of transit subsidy benefits and costs among income classes. J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 47(4), 387–407 (1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Pucher, J.: Discrimination in mass transit. J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 48(3), 315–326 (1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Pucher, J., Renne, J.L.: Socioeconomics of urban travel: evidence from the 2001 National Household Travel Survey. Transp. Q. 57(3), 49–78 (2003)Google Scholar
  40. Rainey, H.G.: Public agencies and private firms: incentive structures, goals, and individual roles. Adm. Soc. 15(2), 207–242 (1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Rainey, H.G., Backoff, R.W., Levine, C.H.: Comparing public and private organizations. Public Adm. Rev. 36(2), 233–244 (1976)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Rastogi, S., Johnson, T.D., Hoeffel, E.M., Drewery, M.P.: The Black Population: 2010. 2010 Census Briefs. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington (2011)Google Scholar
  43. Richmond, J.: A whole-system approach to evaluating urban transit investments. Transp. Rev. 21(2), 141–179 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Richmond, J.: The mythical conception of rail transit in Los Angeles. J. Archit. Plan. Res. 17(3), 294–320 (1998)Google Scholar
  45. Richmond, J.: Transport of Delight: The Mythical Conception of Rail Transit in Los Angeles. University of Akron Press, Akron (2005)Google Scholar
  46. Rubin, T.A., Moore, J.E., Lee, S.: Ten myths about U.S. urban rail systems. Transp. Policy 6(1), 57–73 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Ryan Snyder Associates, Inc.: Ethnicity of transit riders in Los Angeles County by line and system: reply exhibits in support of plaintiffs’ application for preliminary injunction, Exhibit 2. Labor/Community Strategy Center et al. v. Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Case No. CV 94-5936, TJH. United States District Court, Central District of California (1994)Google Scholar
  48. Santos, A., McGuckin, N., Nakamoto, H.Y., Gray, D., Liss, S.: Summary of Travel Trends: 2009 National Household Travel Survey. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Washington (2011)Google Scholar
  49. Schmidt, A.L.: Executive Summary: A Population Perspective of the United States. Population Resource Center, Washington D.C. (2004)Google Scholar
  50. Stazyk, E.C., Goerdel, H.T.: The benefits of bureaucracy: public managers’ perceptions of political support, goal ambiguity, and organizational effectiveness. J. Public Adm. Res. Theory 21(4), 645–672 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Taylor, B.D., Garrett, M., Iseki, H.: Measuring cost variability in provision of transit service. Transp. Res. Rec. 1735, 101–112 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Taylor, B.D., Kim, E.J., Gahbauer, J.E.: The thin red line: a case study of political influence on transportation planning practice. J. Plan. Educ. Res. 29(2), 173–193 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. U.S. Census Bureau: Historical income tables: People. (2012). Accessed 26 April 2012
  54. U.S. Department of Transportation: Livability 101. (2012). Accessed 8 July 2012
  55. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration: 1977 National Personal Transportation Survey. (1977). Accessed 27 May 2012
  56. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration: 1983 National Personal Transportation Survey. Accessed 27 May 2012
  57. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration: 1990 National Personal Transportation Survey. (1990). Accessed 27 May 2012
  58. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration: 1995 National Household Travel Survey. (1995). Accessed 27 May 2012
  59. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration: 2001 National Household Travel Survey. (2001). Accessed 27 May 2012
  60. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration: 2009 National Household Travel Survey. (2009). Accessed 27 May 2012
  61. Vuchic, V.: Urban Transit: Operations, Planning, and Economics. Wiley, Hoboken (2005)Google Scholar
  62. Warwick, D.P.: A Theory of Public Bureaucracy. Harvard Univeristy Press, Cambridge MA (1975)Google Scholar
  63. Wilson, J.Q.: Bureaucracy: What Government Agencies Do and Why They Do It. Basic Books, New York (1989)Google Scholar
  64. Winston, C., Maheshri, V.: On the social desirability of urban rail transit systems. J. Urban Econ. 62(2), 362–382 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Transportation StudiesUCLA Luskin School of Public AffairsLos AngelesUSA
  2. 2.Clemson UniversityClemsonUSA

Personalised recommendations