I write that I'll be away for a bit, and then I see something on the Internet and can't help but comment. Today, it's a piece from The New Republic on private-sector suburban jitneys. A jitney, for the unfamiliar, is something between a taxicab and a bus. They're usually privately-run, following a generally fixed route but able to deviate off that route in order to pick up or drop off passengers. The only place that I'm familiar with in the United States in which they're a common part of the transportation mix is in outer Queens, New York, but they are prevalent in many Asian cities and throughout the developing world. Peter McFerrin, at TNR, believes that they might be the solution to suburban transportation dilemmas.
I disagree, and here's why. McFerrin correctly identifies the problems facing suburban transit agencies and routes: low ridership, low farebox recovery, and high mileage. However, he doesn't get to the root of the problem- that suburban residents by and large own and use automobiles for mobility. It might matter a bit, around the margins, that a new bus on a route is able to detour into a neighbourhood in order to get passengers, but most people are going to continue to drive because that is the behaviour that is encouraged by both our society and our built infrastructure. As I've said before, it's not that the suburbs are impossible to navigate without a car (particularly if you own a bicycle and have some choice in your living situation), but driving in them is ridiculously easy. (As well, some places in the suburbs are more inconvenient than others- even crazy me probably couldn't survive in Eastvale long without access to a car.) So long as that remains the case, transit doesn't stand much of a chance. The area of innovation we need is not in transit service, but in the built environment.
Jitneys in the suburbs will also bring a whole host of new problems that conventional transit agencies don't face. First, they rarely adhere to a regular schedule- not a problem when you have enough demand for frequent headways, but a serious issue for infrequent, suburban routes.
Second, they lose the built-in advertising of the local transit agency. Most people around here know that the catchy little "Bus Stops Here" sign means that that point is connected to a broader transportation network. Many jitneys operate without signage at all, relying on the presence of vehicles to advertise service- and even if they did have signage, under the regulations proposed by the TNR article, a "University Avenue Jitney Stop" sign is much less informative about the service possibilities than an RTA bus stop sign. Further, is every jitney operator about to start up a web site, clearly listing routing, scheduling, and fare policies? I doubt it. People are wary enough about present transit.
Third, jitneys would be hard-pressed to follow an integrated fare policy. Your RTA pass is unlikely to be good on a private van, and the fare you pay on that van will probably not get you access to the RTA system. While I'm sure there are some users who would pay a higher fare to get around (myself included), most transit users in the suburbs are economically disadvantaged. Making them pay for a monthly bus pass (because they'll probably have to transfer to the regular transit system) AND round-trip jitney fare every day is probably going to be a big bite out of their budget.
Lastly, if a route is unprofitable for a suburban transit agency to run, when that agency needs only cover 20% or so of its costs at the farebox, it is unlikely to be profitable for a private operator, who must cover 100%+ of their costs at the farebox. While TNR suggests that such operations could realize significant fuel savings, it is labour, not fuel, that is the primary driver of costs in the transit sector. Most savings that would be realized would be from transforming decent-paying public-sector jobs into uncertain piece-work.
So, no, I don't think the jitney is a solution for the suburbs. I think it's a great fit for under-served parts of big cities, but the success of the model relies on the existence of a great deal of transit users trying to travel in an area. In the modern suburb, there just isn't a big enough transit user base- and it won't be the ephemeral jitney that creates that, it'll be a very conventional combination of dense land use and ordinary transit.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I rode Jitney buses that used to run in San Francisco, South of Market.
If the City of Riverside doesn't want to pony up money for RTA Bus service evenings and weekends, it seems that the City could advertise the buses and get some type of service going.
Of course you are right it might not work. But then many people are OUT OF WORK, many people cannot get out evenings. For example my aunt lives in an apartment along with one hundred or more others who can afford to go out but who no longer drive.
Rather than wiping the idea off the slate, chew on it a bit and find ways to make it work while building trust of riders and also overcoming the SERIOUS NEGATIVE STIGMA the CITY COUNCIL and CITY MANAGER of the City of Riverside gave to those who ride Greyhound, which I believe non bus riders will associate with all bus users.
We need the CITY LEADERSHIP to come behind bus service, to pony up money to pay for reliable adequate bus service so citizens of Riverside may have a live and a way to get home evenings and late night.
K-
Like I said, jitneys have their place: dense, urban neighbourhoods which are underserved, for whatever reason, by conventional transit. San Francisco's SoMa district seems to fit the bill nicely, with most Muni routes running along Market (and the 14 on Van Ness to Mission) without heading directly south.
My point above is that we need to change people's behaviour, including their perception of transit. Jitneys alone won't do that, and without a sizable stock of people who are at least willing to ride the bus, jitneys will fail.
For jitneys to work well, a few conditions need to be in place....
Density is important, although it doesn't necessarily have to be at Manhattan levels to allow for effective jitney service.
Probably more important is a high level of transit dependency. This could mean poor people, college students, military or tourists. Folks with cars sitting in the driveway, ready to go, are no more likely to take the jitney as they would the existing bus services, if any....
There also needs to be a labor pool willing to drive all day. Most of the costs of providing conventional transit service is drivers and mechanics. Are there enough people who want to do this for a living? Your pay is whatever you get out of the farebox, less gas and maintenance. Just like the taxi drivers, the jitney drivers probably won't get rich.
There will also need to be some sort of regulation, either self-regulated (like the Atlantic City jitneys) or governmental. Or some mixture of both. Jitney drivers from the early days of the automobile to now have been known to pull all kinds of dirty tricks, perhaps putting life and limb in danger. If things get out of hand (South African Minibus Taxis, I'm looking right at you!) it's hard for anyone, private or governmental, to get in there and tell the drivers to shape up.....
Post a Comment