Public Transportation Cutback over in Maryland

I just read an editorial about possible public transportation cutbacks over in Eastern Shore Maryland,

"In a blow to public transportation in Wicomico County, Shore Transit is looking to cut $200,000 in annual expenses, starting in the next few weeks. One north Salisbury route could be cut and take care of the problem, brought about by a $100,000 reduction in county funds, which triggered another $100,000 loss in matching federal funds."

In the accompanying editorial, the unidentified writer notes that:

Fewer routes might save money, but each time this happens, the system becomes less useful to potential riders.

The writer goes on to state that:

...buses... can be seen making their daily rounds across the region, often with few or no riders visible --which makes some people's blood boil when they see wasted tax dollars going up in exhaust smoke in the buses' wakes.... Empty or nearly empty buses on fixed routes are clearly neither cost-effective, practical nor desirable --and seeing them does not incline residents to want to support the service.

This is... typical. You have a barely viable public transit system, and so very few people use it. Then, because people don't use it, funds are cut back further. Rendering it even less useful and further decreasing ridership.

I think a lot of people would love to leave their cars in their driveways in favor of walking a few blocks to catch a bus and then being able to use their commute time to read, work, catch up on voice mail and calls. The biggest obstacles to such use, for most people I've talked to, are routes where the buses run too infrequently. When buses don't run often, riders spend much more time waiting for buses and transfers. They worry that if they miss a bus or transfer, they will be very late for work or appointments. Buses that run at intervals of more than 30 minutes are unappealing for most riders.

In other words, if a transit district wants to have a viable service, one that people with choice will actually choose to use, they can't give it a valid trial by providing substantially sub-optimal service. Yet, that is what governments usually do. And when ridership is (predictably) low, well then, they just cut services back even further.

Good public transportation is something we'll all be needing more and more as gas prices edge up. Public transportation provides other public benefits, as seen in the study referenced in yesterday's post. Improved public health, reduced air emissions, reduced traffic fatalities. But almost nowhere, especially in today's economic climate, does it seem that governments have the political will to direct spending sufficient to effect truly viable public transit systems.