Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T17:22:17.993Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Evolution of Federal Transit Policy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 October 2011

Sy Adler
Sy Adler
Affiliation:
Portland State University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The first major piece of national transit legislation was enacted in 1964. By 1969 the Urban Mass Transportation Administration was the subject of a highly critical analysis by staff investigators for a Congressional Appropriations Committee, and in the early 1970s industry analysts sharply critiqued the rationality of urban transit policy in general. In 1981 the Comptroller General of the U.S. reported to Congress that the demand for transit subsidies was approaching crisis proportions. The U.S. government has come to play a greater role in the transit industry than do most European counterparts, provides more passenger subsidy per ride than any other country, and, though transit is everywhere subsidized, the U.S. federal government subsidizes a greater share of industry costs than most other national governments. This article examines the circumstances under which this particular industry-government relationship developed. As part of this industrial policy discussion, the article also looks at the culture of discourse that was present during the early intervention period and that has been characteristic of the transit policy community since that time.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Policy History , Volume 5 , Special Issue 1: Urban Public Policy: Historical Modes and Methods , January 1993 , pp. 69 - 99
Copyright
Copyright © The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA. 1993

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1. Danielson, Michael, Federal-Metropolitan Politics and the Commuter Crisis (New York, 1965)Google Scholar; Smerk, George, Urban Transportation: The Federal Role (Bloomington, 1965)Google Scholar; Schneider, Lewis, “Urban Mass Transportation: A Survey of the Decision-Making Process,” in Bauer, Raymond and Gergen, Kenneth, eds., The Study of Policy Formation (Glencoe, Ill., 1968)Google Scholar; Hanson, Royce, “Congress Copes with Mass Transit,” in Cleaveland, Frederick, ed., Congress and Urban Problems (Washington, D.C., 1969)Google Scholar; Burby, John, “Mass Transit Agency Faces Planning, Staffing Problems in Shift from Rags to Riches,” National Journal, 3 October 1970, 2152Google Scholar; Miller, David, ed., Urban Transit Policy: New Perspectives (Lexington, Mass., 1972);Google Scholar Comptroller General of the United States, Soaring Transit Subsidies Must be Controlled (Washington, D.C., 1981).Google Scholar

2. Pucher, John, “Urban Public Transport Subsidies in Western Europe and North America,” Transportation Quarterly 42 (July 1988).Google Scholar

3. Vogel, David, “Government-Industry Relations in the United States: An Overview,” in Wilks, Stephen and Wright, Maurice, eds., Comparative Government—Industry Relations (Oxford, 1987)Google Scholar; Weaver, R. Kent, The Politics of Industrial Change (Washington, D.C., 1985)Google Scholar; Grant, Wyn, Government and Industry: A Comparative Analysis of the U.S. Canada and the U.K. (Aldershot, England, 1989).Google Scholar

4. Jones, David, Urban Transit Policy: An Economic and Political History (Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1985), 120, 121.Google Scholar

5. Hartsfield, William, in Urban Mass Transportation—1961, Committee on Banking and Currency, U.S. House of Representatives, 87th Cong., 1st sess., June 1961, 72.Google Scholar

6. Brown, Lawrence, New Policies, New Politics: Government's Response to Government's Growth (Washington, D.C., 1983).Google Scholar

7. “Dear Mr. City Official,” Mass Transportation 48 (August 1952); “A Bold Plan to Get People to Ride More,” 51 (September 1955); Passenger Transport, 26 January 1953.Google Scholar

8. Markstein, David and Jarrow, Myles, “Fringe Parking—Shuttle Bus Plan Proves Successful in New Orleans and in Chicago,” Mass Transportation 45 (March 1949)Google Scholar; Passenger Transport, 5 December 1952 and 12 December 1952; Mitchell, Robert, “A Diet for Vehicular Traffic or Starvation for Transit,” Mass Transportation 48 (June 1952)Google Scholar; Barnes, Henry, “Traffic Engineering and Mass Transportation,” Mass Transportation 48 (August 1952)Google Scholar; “Nashville Reserves a Separate Lane for Buses,” Mass Transportation 52 (February 1956).Google Scholar

9. “The ATA Convention in St. Louis,” Mass Transportation 52 (October 1956): 25–26.Google Scholar

10. “A Plea for Emancipation,” Mass Transportation 46 (May 1950); Passenger Transport, 14 November 1952, 13 February 1959.Google Scholar

11. Peter Kocan, “Why Not Charge the Rush Hour Rider?” and Canning, David, “Let Your Schedule Maker Set Your Rates,” Mass Transportation 45 (December 1949)Google Scholar; Kocan, Peter, “Four Years of Fare Increases,” Mass Transportation 46 (January 1950)Google Scholar; “Bold Experiment in Toledo,” Mass Transportation 52 (January 1956)Google Scholar; Gilman, W. C. and Company, St. Louis Metropolitan Area Transportation Study 1957–'70–'80 (New York, 1959). 12. Jones, Urban Transit Policy.Google Scholar

13. “The Showpiece of the Transit Industry,” Mass Transportation 52 (September 1956)Google Scholar; “Nashville Transit Initiates De Luxe Commuter Service,” and “Capital Transit Proposes Club Express Service,” and Jones, John, “Cincinnati Inaugurates Club Flyer Service,” Mass Transportation 51 (February 1955).Google Scholar

14. Pacific Electric Railway Company, Rebuttal Testimony and Exhibits in Case 4843 (Sacramento, 1947), 20.Google Scholar

15. Adler, Seymour, The Political Economy of Transit in the San Francisco Bay Area, 1945–1963 (Washington, D.C., 1980).Google Scholar

16. West, Ben, in National Highway Program, Committee on Public Works, U.S. Senate, 84th Cong., 1st sess., 1955, 196–99.Google Scholar

17. Davis, Donald, Conspicuous Production: Automobiles and Elites in Detroit, 1899–1933 (Philadelphia, 1988)Google Scholar; Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce, Rapid Transit Action Group, Rail Rapid Transit—Now! (Los Angeles, 1948)Google Scholar; Ward, Darrel, “Chicago Denounces New Concept in Rapid Transit,” Moss Transportation 58 (March 1962).Google Scholar

18. California Assembly, Preliminary Report of the Assembly Investigating Committee on Traffic Control, Assembly Journal, 23 March 1948, 448; Santa Monica Evening Outlook, 18 April 1949; Southwest Wave, 11 March 1948; Adler, Sy, “The Transformation of the Pacific Electric Railway: Bradford Snell, Roger Rabbit, and the Politics of Transportation in Los Angeles,” Urban Affairs Quarterly 27 (September 1991).Google Scholar

19. Adler, Sy, “Why BART but no LART? The Political Economy of Rail Rapid Transit Planning in the Los Angeles and San Francisco Metropolitan Areas, 1945–1957,” Planning Perspectives 2:2 (1987).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

20. Adler, The Political Economy of Transit in the San Fransico Bay Area, 1945–1963.

21. Williams, Harrison in Urban Mass Transportation—1962, Committee on Banking and Currency, U.S. Senate, 87th Cong., 2d sess., April 1962, 156Google Scholar; Urban Mass Transportation—1963, Committee on Banking and Currency, U.S. Senate, 88th Cong., lst sess., 1963, 86.

22. “That St. Louis Arbitration,” The Motorman, Conductor and Motor Coach Operator 55 (August 1947)Google Scholar; , D. McClurg, “30th Convention Notes,” 57 (November 1949)Google Scholar; “Proceedings of the Thirty-Third Convention,” 63 (November 1955); Oakland Tribune, 12 September 1956; Adler, The Political Economy of Transit in the San Francisco Bay Area, 1945–1963.Google Scholar

23. Doig, Jameson, Metropolitan Transportation Politics and the New York Region (New York, 1966).Google Scholar

24. “Baltimore Group to Offer Ownership Plan,” Passenger Transport, 25 November 1955; “Baltimore Transit Bills Die in State Legislature,” Passenger Transport, 5 April 1957; “City Presents Plan for Baltimore Area Transit Authority,” Passenger Transport, 13 February 1959; “Study Commission Drafts New Bill to Create Transit Authority for Metro Baltimore Area,” Passenger Transport, 8 January 1960; , H. Polland, “What's Ahead in '64— Chicago,” Metropolitan Transportation and Planning, January 1964, 29.Google Scholar

25. Murin, William, Mass Transit Policy Planning: An Incremental Approach (Lexington, Mass., 1971).Google Scholar

26. “Is a Super Agency the Answer?” Metropolitan Transportation 57 (August 1961).Google Scholar

27. “AMA adopts 1957 Policy Statement on Mass Transit,” Passenger Transport, 11 January 1957; “Editorial,” Mass Transportation 53 (December 1957); “Provision for Mass Transit Should Be Considered in Planning New Highways,” Passenger Transport, 31 January 1958; “Urge Transit Strips in D.C. Highways,” Passenger Transport, 15 November 1957; “Express Bus, Rapid Transit Network Proposed at D.C.” Passenger Transport, 17 July 1959.Google Scholar

28. “Joint Report to the President by the Secretary of Commerce and the Housing and Home Finance Administration,” in Urban Mass Transportation— 1962, Committee on Banking and Currency, U.S. Senate, 87th Cong., 2d sess., 72.

29. “A Message from the President of the United States, 1962” in Smerk, George, ed., Readings in Urban Transportation (Bloomington, 1968), 309; Rex Whitton in Urban Mass Transportation—1962, Committee on Banking and Currency, U.S. Senate, 129.Google Scholar

30. Walter McCarter in Urban Mass Transportation—1963, Committee on Banking and Currency, U.S. Senate, 151.

31. Gordon Clinton in Urban Mass Transportation—1963, 190–91.

32. Holcombe Parkes in Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1962, Committee on Banking and Currency, U.S. House of Representatives, 87th Cong., 2d sess., 439–40.

33. III, William Lilley, “Urban Interests Win Transit Bill With ‘Letter-Perfect’ Lobbying,” National Journal, 19 September 1970.Google Scholar

34. Smerk, George, The Federal Role in Urban Mass Transportation (Bloomington, 1991), 115–19.Google Scholar

35. Robert Weaver in Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1963, Committee on Banking and Currency, U.S. House of Representatives, 88th Cong., 1st sess., 42.

36. Smerk, The Federal Role in Urban Mass Transportation, 123–29.

37. Quinn, Dennis, Jr., Restructuring the Automobile Industry (New York, 1988).Google Scholar

38. , E. Williams, Jr., and , D. Bluestone, Rationale of Federal Transportation Policy (Washington, D.C., 1960), 52–54Google Scholar; Walker, David in Metropolitan Mass Transportation, Committee on Banking and Currency, U.S. House of Representatives, 86th Cong., 2d sess., 1960, 7.Google Scholar

39. Robert Weaver in Urban Mass Transportation—1961, 4–5.

40. John F. Kennedy in Urban Mass Transportation—1961, 4.

41. Ibid., 4; “Joint Report to the President by the Secretary of Commerce and the Housing and Home Finance Administration,” in Urban Mass Transportation—1962, Committee on Banking and Currency, U.S. Senate, 74.

42. Robert Weaver in Urban Mass Transportation—1961, 25.

43. “A Message from the President of the United States, 1962,” 302–6.

44. Lyle Fitch in Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1962, 475.

45. Robert Weaver in Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1962, 90–91.

46. Robert Weaver in Urban Mass Transportation—1962, Committee on Banking and Currency, U.S. Senate, 116.

47. Leon Moses in Urban Mass Transportation—1962, Committee on Commerce, U.S. Senate, 37–50.

48. Harrison Williams in Urban Mass Transportation—1962, Committee on Commerce, U.S. Senate, 135.

49. Webber, Melvin, “Transportation Planning Models,” Traffic Quarterly 15 (July 1961).Google Scholar

50. Murin, Mass Transit Policy Planning, 50.

51. Clair Engle in Urban Mass Transportation—1962, Committee on Banking and Currency, U.S. Senate, 123; Browne, Alan K., “Financing California Rapid Transit,” Traffic Quarterly 17 (January 1963).Google Scholar

52. Smerk, The Federal Role in Urban Mass Transportation, 97–103, 131.

53. Robert Weaver, Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1963, 60.

54. Barsness, Richard, “The Department of Transportation: Concept and Structure,” Western Political Quarterly 23 (September 1970)Google Scholar; Mertins, Herman, Jr., National Transportation Policy in Transition (Lexington, Mass., 1972).Google Scholar

55. Davis, Grant Miller, The Department of Transportation (Lexington, Mass., 1970), 190.Google Scholar

56. Kanwit, Edmond, “The Urban Mass Transportation Administration: Its Problems and Promise,” in Miller, David, ed., Urban Transportation Policy: New Perspectives (Lexington, Mass., 1972).Google Scholar

57. Smerk, The Federal Role in Urban Mass Transportation, 131–32.

58. Altshuler, Alan and Curry, Robert, “The Changing Environment of Urban Development Policy—Shared Power or Impotence?” Urban Law Annual 10:3 (1975).Google Scholar

59. III, William Lilley, “Transit Lobby Sights Victory in Fight for Massive Subsidy Program,” National Journal, 4 March 1972.Google Scholar

60. Smerk, The Federal Role in Urban Mass Transportation, 132; U.S. Urban Mass Transportation Administration, Feasibility of Federal Assistance for Urban Mass Transportation Operating Costs (Washington, D.C., 1971); “Mass Transit: The Expensive Dream,” Business Week, 27 August 1984.Google Scholar

61. Pickrell, Don, “Federal Operating Assistance for Urban Mass Transit: Assessing a Decade of Experience,” in Transit Pricing and Performance, Transportation Research Record 1078 (Washington, D.C., 1986).Google Scholar

62. Meyer, John R., Kain, John F., and Wohl, Martin, Technology and Urban Transportation (Washington, D.C., 1962)Google Scholar; Ingraham, Joseph, “Car-Bus Transit for Cities Urged,” New York Times, 30 October 1962.Google Scholar

63. Meyer, Kain, and Wohl, Technology and Urban Transportation, 21.

64. Ibid., 42–43, 46–49, 58, 91, 94, 97–98, 112–14.

65. “An Evaluation of a Report Entitled ‘Technology and Urban Transportation,’ ” Institute for Rapid Transit Newsletter 4 (August 1963): 5–9.Google Scholar

66. Williams, Harrison, Jr., “Who's Right in Rail-Bus Row?” Metropolitan Transportation 59 (January 1963): 25.Google Scholar

67. Fitch, Lyle and Associates, Urban Transportation and Public Policy (San Francisco, 1964), 20.Google Scholar

68. Ibid., 20–21.

69. Ibid., 156.

70. Leon Moses in Urban Mass Transportation—1962, Committee on Commerce, U.S. Senate, 48, 50.

71. Investment Bankers Association of America in Urban Mass Transportation—1963, 398–403.

72. American Road Builders' Association in Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1963, 555–57.

73. Bernard Cushman in Urban Mass Transportation—1963, 328–29; See the sources cited in note 1.

74. Meyer, Kain, and Wohl, Technology and Urban Transportation,106; Webber, Melvin, The BART Experiment: What Have We Learned? (Berkeley, 1976).Google Scholar

75. III, William Lilley, “Urban Interests Win Transit Bill With ‘Letter-Perfect’ Lobbying,” National ]oumal, 19 September 1970, 2026.Google Scholar

76. Hall, Peter and Hass-Klau, Carmen, Can Rail Save the City? (London, 1985)Google Scholar; Wachs, Martin, “U.S. Transit Subsidy Policy: In Need of Reform,” Science, 30 June 1989Google Scholar; New Urban Rail Transit: How Can Its Development and Growth-Shaping Potential Be Realized? Committee on Banking, Finance, and Urban Affairs, U.S. House of Representatives, 96th Cong., 1st sess., 1980; Hamer, Andrew, Selling Rail Rapid Transit (Lexington, Mass., 1976).Google Scholar

77. Kanwit, “The Urban Mass Transportation Administration,” 86–87.

78. Harrison Williams in Urban Mass Transportation—1963, 150.

79. Adler, Sy, Understanding the Dynamics of Innovation in Urban Transit (Washington, D.C., 1986).Google Scholar