To Get To The Train, We Have to Ride the Bus
Support for mass transit is pretty much a given among the ranks of the politically progressive, and light rail is high on the wish lists of most transit supporters. So a lot of progressives were disappointed recently when the Central Ohio Transit Authority (COTA) announced that the North Corridor Transit Project, the first of several proposed light rail (or equivalent, passenger) routes, is ineligible for federal funding, and has been placed on indefinite hold. Some have gone so far as to rail (pun intended) loudly and publicly about COTA's ineptitude in failing to secure funding. This, however, is counterproductive, because all viable rail systems in this country depend on effective bus service. In fact, every newer US rail system evolved out of an excellent bus system. And, though certain recent distractions have led some to believe otherwise, directing the region's transit resources toward strengthening COTA offers far better odds of success than starting fresh with anything else. It is no exaggeration to say that the success or failure of COTA's levy this November could make or break transit's viability in Columbus for the foreseeable future.

The Case for Transit
Effective mass transit reduces traffic congestion, improves land usage by reducing the acreage required for parking, and cuts energy usage and emissions. Transit provides mobility to those who are unable to own or operate cars. In some cities, the transit property also provides at least some fraction of school transportation, reducing the tax money required to maintain and operate the usual fleets of yellow buses.

Well-traveled Americans often ask wistfully why we can't have extensive and effective transit systems like they've seen in other countries. In fact, we do. New York, San Francisco, Washington DC, and other cities have excellent rail networks, and there are quite a few excellent bus systems. The key factors, however, are significant areas of high population density, and solid funding. Density is crucial to the effective operation of any transit system, since it dictates not only the quality of service, but also the form.

For patrons who have a choice, convenience is far more important than cost in determining transit ridership. Trip for trip, using transit costs less than driving a car in every US city for which a reasonable comparison can be made. But substantial numbers of Americans continue to choose driving, because riding requires too many schedule adjustments. Time is money to people who have money. Those who lack money but still require mobility wait as long as it takes.

Evolution of a Transit System
To coax commuters out of their cars, transit must provide an acceptable combination of frequency, coverage, and hours. It's easier to take transit if it runs every 15 minutes instead of every hour. It's easier to use the system if it stops two blocks from home than if you have to travel two miles to the nearest stop. A transfer is a deal breaker for many potential riders. And the hours of service have to stretch late enough to allow you to get home when you're unexpectedly delayed.

But transit systems wouldn't arbitrarily increase hours, frequency, and coverage, even if the funding to do so were available (fat chance of that!). When vehicles run substantially below their capacity, it's not only costly; they actually increase congestion, emissions, and energy consumption. An electric light rail car may use less energy per passenger than a bus, but that doesn't mean it uses less energy. In fact, a light rail car uses far more energy, making the bus far more efficient if it can carry the load. Though labor costs complicate the calculations somewhat (each vehicle, whatever its size, needs only one operator), maintaining high load factors is an essential part of realizing the benefit of any mass transit system.

Because load factor is intimately related to frequency, coverage, and hours of operation, transit systems are in a classic Catch-22. Low ridership limits the possible extent of service, but limited service discourages increased ridership. This is where population density comes into play.

Transit properties start by mapping out a limited number of routes, usually in the most densely traveled corridors. Think of High and Broad Streets. Smaller vehicles (in Columbus, this typically means standard 40-foot transit buses, which would be considered large in many markets) are then assigned to run these routes at an "acceptably poor" service level. The vehicles run often enough to attract ridership, but not as often as most would find convenient. The population density along the chosen routes is the primary factor in assuring sufficient ridership.

As load factors improve on a route, service frequency can be increased. Increased frequency leads to increased ridership. New areas of coverage can then be mapped, usually with an eye toward feeding passengers into existing routes. If all goes well, a "virtuous circle" ensues, with improved service leading to increased ridership, leading to further improvements. When buses are running close to capacity and very frequently (say, every 10 minutes) on a particular route, the transit property faces a choice. Either buses can be platooned, or larger vehicles can be used. Once high capacity buses are running at high load factors and frequencies, the property faces a second, more difficult (though desirable) choice. They can continue adding buses, or pay the very high capital costs of dedicated rights-of-way and even larger vehicles: light rail, heavy rail, or bus rapid transit (BRT). Dedicated rights-of-way serve as the backbones of larger systems, requiring extensive systems of feeder routes to support them.

Dedicated rights-of-way offer the ability to leapfrog traffic congestion, since the transit vehicles aren't mixed with other traffic. This speeds the trip and improves schedule reliability.
But big vehicles carry big risks. Larger vehicles provide improved cost effectiveness and energy efficiency only if they are full. The capital cost per seat rises dramatically with each increment of vehicle size. This per seat jump poses a particularly formidable hurdle in the transition from bus to rail.

COTA Here and Now
Unfortunately, COTA recently flirted with the flip side of the virtuous circle described above. Due to woefully inadequate funding, COTA was forced to reduce frequency, coverage, and hours. Though the budget left COTA management no other viable options, Central Ohio commuters should not misinterpret the cuts as anything other than an act of desperation. COTA amputated an arm to keep itself from bleeding to death. Fortunately, many of their riders stayed on board, so load factors went up. In fact, load factors actually rose to unacceptably high levels on some routes, creating too many standees. Despite an extremely dangerous surgery, the patient has survived, at least for the time being.

But taxpayers shouldn't view this as a successful outcome. COTA's network appears very sparse, meaning we have relatively low coverage for a city our size.

As for rail in Columbus, the near term future is chiseled in granite. Federal Transit Administration (FTA) guidelines contain a built-in bias towards existing multi-modal systems, effectively prohibiting new rail (or BRT) systems from being started by properties that don't already have them. At Congress' request, FTA will be reviewing this unintended bias, and the guidelines will probably be modified. When they are, COTA will revisit the North Corridor project. Until then, COTA's business will be conducted with buses and paratransit. Those who suggest that COTA should fund rail without FTA's 50 percent funding match are hallucinating about the generosity of central Ohio taxpayers.

The Bandwagon Is a Bus!
This November, COTA will ask for a 1/4 percent temporary (10-year) sales tax increase. The requested amount will augment the "permanent" 1/4 percent sales tax which currently provides COTA's core funding. Transit supporters need to make ourselves heard between now and the election. Below are three suggestions for how we can best foster the transit system our city deserves:

1. COTA must have a viable bus system if we're to have a viable rail system. Neither private businesses nor any other public agency can do a better job for less money. It's more rational and less costly to build the bus first, then the train, rather than both at the same time.

2. Ride the bus, and invite your friends and acquaintances to ride with you. COTA can take you to Polaris, to the Zoo, and to Ohio Stadium!

3. Talk to your neighbors and friends. Tell them about the benefits of transit. Encourage them to vote for the levy!