Transit fantasy

In an otherwise encouraging story about light-rail expansion in Los Angeles, Robert B. Cervero, director of the University of California Transportation Center in Berkeley, is quoted from his email:

The science of public transit is not too complicated. It comes down to how time-competitive transit is with the private car. If it takes two to three times longer to get from Point A to Point B by transit, the vast majority of folks will drive. If it’s faster going by bus or train, then most will forsake their car and ride transit.

I'm pretty sure Cervero knows better. I certainly do, having been a dedicated transit rider for decades.

Choosing transit over the car is a multifactor decision. Speed is one factor, certainly, but so is cost, convenience (a trip to the bulk-discount store isn't going to happen on a bus), and what might be termed quality of experience (people for whom transit is genuinely a choice aren't going to tolerate the smell of dried urine, overcrowded vehicles, erratic driving, too-frequent stops, etc.).

So if all you're doing is heading to and from work, and it doesn't cost more than the amount you think you spend on gas (people never account for maintenance, insurance, and depreciation when calculating the cost of driving), and you don't need to carry heavy or bulky accoutrements, transit might appeal to you, especially if all-day parking is scarce.

That's a lot of caveats, isn't it? Trust me, even the most dedicated riders weigh these hidden costs.

Positing that ridership depends only on a single aspect of the ride invites unrealistic expectations of how much the system can reduce congestion. Riding transit is a habit it takes time to acquire, and it requires a culture that supports transit as an option even among people who don't regularly use it. Blithe, airy pronouncements like Cervero's just reduce the credibility of transit advocates.