Comparison and Brief History of Public Transportation in the US, Japan and Europe

Max Dunn
July 19, 2008

United States

The United States once led the world in public transit use. Early in the 20th century, American cities undergoing rapid population growth provided ideal settings for the introduction of many faster and more efficient transit technologies. Grid-style street systems, ample land for expansion, thriving economies, mass immigration, and a general willingness by the public to try new transportation technologies fostered a streetcar revolution that swept across the country. By 1920, Americans living in cities were averaging more than 250 transit trips per year, mainly on the nation’s 65 000 km of electric railway. Hundreds of American cities were served by privately operated streetcar lines.

In many respects, however, the same characteristics that gave rise to electric traction hastened its decline during the middle of the century. Increasingly affluent and able to afford automobiles, Americans began buying them in droves after World War I. By 1930, one of every four households owned a car, and by 1960 there was one car registered for every two Americans. The faster and more flexible automobile vastly increased the amount of land available for residential and commercial development. Urban development could, and did, take place increasingly farther from the traditional central cities and early suburbs formed along transit lines. Large urban areas—many shaped almost entirely by the automobile—emerged after the streetcar era had passed.

Even as these trends were becoming manifest between the two world wars, little attention was being given to the lasting changes that were taking place in American cities, much less to the profound effects these changes would have on urban transit systems. Indeed, the migration of households to the suburbs—seeking better schools, more land, and larger homes—was generally viewed as a positive trend that would strengthen cities by relieving crowding and alleviating traffic congestion. A host of government policies, from tax incentives that fostered home ownership to the construction of freeways radiating out from city centers, would come to reinforce and accelerate this outward migration. [1]

Many public transportation systems that existed prior to domination of the car were dismantled by the emergent car industry in a move came to be known as the Great American Streetcar Scandal; GM managed to rip out over 100 streetcar systems nationwide by 1950. [2]

Businesses soon joined the flow of people to the suburbs. As central cities lost households, jobs, and shopping places, transit use fell sharply. Not until the mid-1960s, however, did the diminishing fortunes of American cities and the intertwined fate of transit attract national attention, precipitating large-scale federal and state investments in public transportation. By this time, the automobile had supplanted demand for bus and rail transit throughout much of urban America. Though increasingly subsidized, public transit’s market narrowed, in many cases comprising almost entirely the urban poor. Having limited political influence and contributing a dwindling share of operating revenues, these remaining riders endured declining levels of service. Among more affluent travelers with other transportation options, transit usage fell still further. [1]

Here is a sample of several cities and their public transportation usage:

City	No. of Workers	% Public Transport	% Drive Alone	Mean Travel Time (Mins)
New York City	3,597,547	54.24%	23.58%	39.0
Los Angeles	1,721,778	10.97%	67.28%	29.2
San Francisco	394,646	30.29%	40.47%	29.0
San Jose	431,910	3.92%	76.66%	25.4
Portland	276,465	12.64%	60.61%	23.2
San Diego	623,801	4.10%	74.67%	22.4
Oklahoma City	253,703	0.93%	79.58%	19.5

Public transportation ridership in the US has risen 31% while overall population only increased 15% since 1995 – more than the same period's increase in roadway vehicle miles or airline passenger miles. [2]

International data indicates that the cost per point of public transport market share in the United States is 3.5 times that of Western Europe and 10 times that of high-income Asia. Subsidies are also highest in the United States, also at 3.5 times Western Europe. The largest systems in high-income Asia are generally not subsidized, either for capital or operations (Tokyo-Yokohama alone carries nearly double the number of passengers each year as all USA public transport systems combined). It can be expected that the gap with Europe will increase, as competitive incentives and funding decentralization are increasingly used the to reduce unit costs and expand public service within existing budgets. [3]

Japan

In Japan, railways are a major means of passenger transportation, especially for mass and high-speed transport between major cities and for commuter transport in metropolitan areas.

In Tokyo, with 33 million people 57 percent of travel is on public transit, with more than 80 percent of travel on the private railways. Total travel is approximately 2.5 times total U.S. transit travel.

Smaller Osaka is just as impressive. The area’s 17 million residents use transit for 60 percent of their travel. Total transit travel is 1.3 times that of all transit in the United States combined. Again, more than 80 percent of travel is on the private railroads.

Why is transit so much more successful in Japan than in the United States? There are a number of factors.

• Historically, much lower personal income in Japan kept automobile ownership at lower levels, so transit demand is higher.
• Unlike U.S. and Western European transit systems, profitability makes the transit systems of Japan sustainable. Westerners have yet to learn that massive subsidies are not the path to larger transit market shares.
• Urban expressways in Japan require heavy tolls--something generally not found either in the United States or Western Europe.
• The suburban rail systems in Japan also operate thousands of buses (more than 10,000 in Tokyo and 2,500 in Osaka), which circulate through neighborhoods and deliver people to the rail stations.
• Downtown employment in the Japanese cities is far greater than in the U.S. The Tokyo Yamanote Loop has double the employment of Manhattan, while the Osaka Loop has three times the employment of Chicago’s.
• The suburban rail systems of Japan were built concurrently with or ahead of the suburban sprawl (both Tokyo and Osaka sprawl extensively), and system upgrades were made to maintain their superior speeds. The dense mesh of service provided by these systems is simply not to be found in the West.

All of these factors have played an important role in the success of Japanese transit. But the principal reason for the success of the Tokyo and Osaka systems is their competitiveness with the automobile.

Average transit speeds in Tokyo and Osaka are 1.5 times that of the automobile. In both places, traffic intensities are well above that of Los Angeles, the worst in the U.S. Neither Japanese urban area has the high-quality roadway system of Los Angeles to handle the demand (though the Japanese roadways do compare well with Atlanta).

Even if the necessary trillions of dollars could be found to superimpose the Japanese transit systems on U.S. urban areas, they would be far less automobile-competitive here than they are in Japan. On average, urban traffic speeds in the U.S. are at least double that of Tokyo and Osaka. [4]

Europe

By all measures, the automobile remains less convenient and more costly to operate in Western Europe than in the United States, especially in cities. High levies on motor fuel—several times higher than in the United States—and high parking charges and taxes on motor vehicles continue to make car ownership and use expensive. Many Western European cities have also taken direct steps to discourage driving, for instance by curtailing parking. The higher cost and greater inconvenience of driving in Western European cities does much to explain the higher levels of transit use there.

Western Europeans also tend to view their historic cities, as well as the undeveloped land around them, as scarce and fragile national resources that must be protected and conserved. Hence, in contrast with the United States, urban land use is typically planned and regulated at the national and regional levels. Western European land use planners have long encouraged compact and clustered residential and commercial urban development that is accessible by transit. The integration of land use and transportation planning is made possible in Western Europe because national, regional, and local governments often share these responsibilities, or one unit of government—often the national government—has sole jurisdiction over both.

By comparison, land use planning is very much a local responsibility in the United States, and it is seldom well coordinated with regional transportation planning. With such diffuse controls, it is difficult to foster urban development patterns that promote public transit use by raising densities and introducing mixed commercial and residential land uses. [5]

Fuel Savings

Unfortunately, some forms of public transportation are less efficient on a passenger mile per gallon (PMPG) basis than automobile transportation. For instance, city buses in the US average 3.3 MPG and their average load is 10 passengers, so they get only 33 PMPG. By contrast, an average automobile trip with the average number of passengers is 44 PMPG.

Here are some average PMPG of various forms of transportation: [6]

• Motor coach - 184 PMPG
• Light rail – 120 PMPG
• Trolley bus – 104 PMPG
• Van pool - 102 PMPG
• Commuter rail – 86 PMPG
• Intercity rail – 66 PMPG
• Car pool, 2 persons - 55 PMPG
• Car, average trip – 44 PMPG
• Domestic air travel - 42 PMPG
• Transit bus – 33 PMPG
• Ferry boat - 13 PMPG

However, on average, public transportation does save fuel over automobile transportation, especially single person travel. In addition, public transportation reduces congestion which allows private automobiles to travel more efficiently, saving more fuel.

The APTA estimated that public transportation in the US in 2005 saved 21 million barrels of oil. (6.9 million tons of CO2 * 2000 lbs per ton / 22 gallons per lb of CO2 / 30 gallons per barrel). [7]

ICF International estimated that public transportation saves 47 million barrels of oil per year. [8]

References

[1] http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10110&page=3

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_transportation

[3] http://www.publicpurpose.com/

[4] http://www.demographia.com/db-htld-rail.htm

[5] http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10110&page=6

[6] http://www.buses.org/files/ComparativeEnergy.pdf

[7] http://www.apta.com/research/info/online/climate_change.cfm#cc2

[8] http://www.icfi.com/Markets/Transportation/doc_files/public-transportation.pdf