Race, Class, and the Stigma of Riding the Bus in America

[M II A II R II K]

Race, Class, and the Stigma of Riding the Bus in America


Jul 10, 2012

By Amanda Hess



Read More: http://www.theatlanticcities.com/com...-america/2510/

In 2009, Jacqueline Carr’s public transit experience was limited to bus lines of the "party" variety. Then, Carr lost her talent agency gig, sold her Jetta, and charted out a route to her new job—and yoga class—on the Los Angeles city bus system. Carr deemed this lifestyle shift so significant that she launched a blog, Snob on a Bus, to detail her experiences. When it comes to L.A. bus riders, Carr—a 20-something white woman—is a unicorn. In Los Angeles, 92 percent of bus riders are people of color. Their annual median household income is $12,000.

- Despite its car-centric layout, L.A. provides more complete, if sluggish, transportation access to the carless than any other major metropolitan area in the country. Still, a "choice" commuter like Carr has plenty of incentive to keep the Jetta. City bus travel can be slow, unreliable, inconvenient, hot, uncomfortable, and confusing (it can also be cheaper, greener, and a perfect opportunity to sit back and actually read something, or at least improve your Angry Birds skills). Many of these limitations can be alleviated with investment in larger fleets, dedicated bus lanes, streamlined transit maps, and a little air conditioning. But there’s a more conceptual roadblock keeping well-to-do commuters from getting on board. "I felt like I was too good for the bus," Carr told the Los Angeles Times of the origins of her "snobbish" take. "I think there’s a social understanding and a construction around that if you take the bus, you take it because you don’t have money. There’s a social standard. Obviously I had bought into that."

- Fifty years of urban gentrification and suburban integration later, Manhattan Institute data suggests that the all-white American neighborhood is "effectively extinct." But U.S. transportation systems have not been marching toward racial integration—quite the opposite. According to the research of Mark Garrett and Brian Taylor, minorities accounted for 21 percent of bus riders in 1977. By 1995, that number had jumped to 69 percent. In that time, the proportion of minority car drivers rose just 8 percent. As minority bus ridership rises, the racial stigma against the transportation form compounds. When Atlanta launched its Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA) system in the 1970s, some hissed that the acronym stood for "Moving Africans Rapidly Through Atlanta." Today, though 78 percent of MARTA riders are black, many black residents still struggle to access the city bus lines, which fail to stretch deep enough into the sprawling black suburbs.

- When a new bus route was charted through a white Tempe, Arizona, neighborhood a few years ago, neighbors complained that the line would attract serial killers and child rapists. Also: "bums," "drunks," and "Mexicans," who the commentators feared would soon be "drinking out of our water hoses." The ramifications of this stigma stretch far beyond NIMBY name-calling. Localities have responded by pouring funds into more gentrifiable transit systems at the expense of the city bus—even if ridership on subways and light rails represents a relatively boutique market. In 1995, activists in Los Angeles formed the Bus Riders Union to fight the city’s massive investment in its rail system, which they claimed violated the civil rights of the city’s minority residents. Though buses are cheaper, easier to implement, more flexible, and practically serve a greater diversity of riders than rail, the city had allocated 70 percent of its transportation budget to what amounted to just 6 percent of the system's (disproportionately white) travelers.

- Can a city build a less stigmatized bus? After all, the racial and class bias attached to city buses has little to do with the vehicle itself and everything to do with the riders on it. Garrett and Taylor note that though "bus ridership declines with rising income, the use of streetcars, subways, and commuter railroads tends to increase with higher income." As the blog Seattlest put it in 2006: "If the actual goal is to get people out of their cars and onto transit by choice, no one's going to give up the hybrid for a damn bus." But it was not always this way. When public buses were first introduced in Washington, D.C. in the early 1900s, many riders viewed them as a more comfortable, "modern" alternative to the existing streetcar system. By the 1960s, the city’s streetcar lines were abandoned and dismantled. In 2009, D.C. began laying track for a new line of (exorbitantly expensive) streetcars, including along some "blighted" corridors of the city, all of them already served by city buses. The plan was targeted less at getting commuters where they needed to go and more at coaxing them to move in this "new," exciting way—maybe even to parts of town they previously avoided.

- Choice commuters want a transit solution that seems modern, even if it's actually old school. Really, they want a transportation choice that feels made for people just like them. And there’s no reason—as Salon’s Will Doig has argued—that buses can’t achieve a similar reversal as the revitalized streetcar. In major cities from Colombia to China, Doig says, the bus has risen to become "a form of what people see as upper-class transit." In Mexico City, "the [Bus Rapid Transit] system has come to be seen as the upper-class form of transit because it's perceived as safer and cleaner" than the subway. As Doig notes, making buses that beat the subway often means making them act more like trains—streamlining routes and limiting stops; making bus and train routes appear more equivalent on transit maps; renaming bus lines after colors instead of numbers; cordoning off dedicated bus lanes to avoid traffic congestion. While some of these improvements are practical, overcoming the stigma is also a matter of gimmickry that doesn’t help anyone get to work any faster. In the United States, the DOT has noted that bus rapid transit systems can benefit from "an articulated brand identity" that helps improve "the image that choice riders have of transit."

.....

[jg6544]

There is one problem with bus-based transportation in L.A. and everywhere else in the country - it provides absolutely nothing to make it more attractive than driving. Buses that run on dedicated rights of way may be an exception, but a bus on a city street is stuck in the same traffic everyone else is stuck in and it's a hell of a lot less comfortable and less convenient.

[emathias]

Originally Posted by jg6544

There is one problem with bus-based transportation in L.A. and everywhere else in the country - it provides absolutely nothing to make it more attractive than driving. Buses that run on dedicated rights of way may be an exception, but a bus on a city street is stuck in the same traffic everyone else is stuck in and it's a hell of a lot less comfortable and less convenient.

On an individual basis, it requires no capital investment and only per-use fees. That is one incentive over a car. You may not find that compelling, but it's one area where it's definitely more attractive than driving. You can also read, play games, even get work done on a bus, things you can't do in a car.

[hammersklavier]

Amanda Hess messes up--badly--by characterizing mass transit modes as being in competition; in reality, they're a continuum. Light rail and subways are not "boutique markets"; they're higher forms of mass transit, essentially mass transit's Interstates. They form the core the bus network orients itself to.

And when a bus line proves busy enough, it demands (or should demand) upgrading into a rail-based solution.

This is the case in L.A., where the bus network is optimized to the point of diminishing returns. (Whether or not people actually ride the bus is another thing altogether, and is definitely tied into perception and branding.) Meanwhile, its rail skeleton is, ahem, lacking. So it's no surprise L.A. has pushed rail funding--and other cities with well-developed bus networks but mediocre rail offerings would do well to follow its example.

This is not to say I disagree with her point, or the idea that there are indeed "boutique" rail systems being built in this country (partly because the funding structure enables them)--but she is displaying profound transit planning ignorance in this article.

[waltlantz]

While it is greener, the fact remains that it is slower and uncomfortable.

Few people are sold on public transpo on the "it's good for the environment" line, it has to do well enough to get people where they need to go in a reasonable amount of time.

Until zoning laws change to create higher average densities and close gaps between work and play nationwide, this gap will still exist.

I take PT often and I am for good PT systems, but it's true I don't have a car (not by choice, can't afford one). I am grateful that my bus line takes me to my Metro stop, but driving the car to the stop gets me there in half the time so.....

[ssiguy]

Although Americans view buses as the lowest common denominator I don't think most view BRT systems the same way. BRT have a far higher social ranking than standard buses and this is also the case with many commuter buses.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Although Americans view buses as the lowest common denominator I don't think most view BRT systems the same way. BRT have a far higher social ranking than standard buses and this is also the case with many commuter buses.

You're probably correct if BRT is built in dedicated lanes with light rail type station platforms. But most BRT in America is just longer 60 ft bus instead of the regular 30-40 ft bus in shared lanes with a special livery. It's neither faster nor easier to board than a traditional bus. So BRT doesn't have a higher social standing in most of America.

[waltlantz]

BRT systems would be very well recieved.........AFTER the fallout of potentially taking lanes from traffic.

It would require someone with a couple of brass balls to go through with it.

[brickell]

In my personal experience the snobbish quotient varies greatly from route to route also. It's kind of like white flight, but on the bus.

[McBane]

Originally Posted by jg6544

There is one problem with bus-based transportation in L.A. and everywhere else in the country - it provides absolutely nothing to make it more attractive than driving. Buses that run on dedicated rights of way may be an exception, but a bus on a city street is stuck in the same traffic everyone else is stuck in and it's a hell of a lot less comfortable and less convenient.

Bingo!

Buses stop at every block -- and they still have to deal with the rest of traffic. And b/c of that, schedules are impossible to maintain - when was the last time you waited for a bus and it was on time?

The only thing a bus has going for it over driving is that you can avoid the time and expense of parking.

Where I live, I take the bus - but it's the express bus that takes the highway. It makes a few stops in the neighborhood and then jumps on the highway. It takes a bit longer then driving but I don't have to deal with parking and I can drink as much as I want Plus, they come more often then the train and are a lot cheaper.

I have access to two of these buses, two regular buses, and the train (but the train is a good 10 min walk away). I never take the regular buses. Not only are they slow as heck, but they travel through some very rough neighborhoods. I rarely ever take the train. It's much further away than the bus, comes much less often, and is prohibitively expensive. If I include the walk to the station, it's not really any faster than the express bus.

[min-chi-cbus]

There ARE cities where riding the bus is LESS of a stigma than what is being portrayed by this article: e.g. Seattle, Minneapolis, Boston, etc.

Probably cities that don't have large swaths of inner-city ghettos to ride through are the ones that are most "bus-friendly" to the 9:5 crowd.

[papilgee4evaeva]

Originally Posted by min-chi-cbus

There ARE cities where riding the bus is LESS of a stigma than what is being portrayed by this article: e.g. Seattle, Minneapolis, Boston, etc.

Probably cities that don't have large swaths of inner-city ghettos to ride through are the ones that are most "bus-friendly" to the 9:5 crowd.

And college towns. But they're a special case.

[Okstate]

^ Yes. I ride the bus in Portland and the crowd is completely diverse amongst socio-economic and racial lines. There is minimal stigma associated with public transit here.

[mhays]

I work with several six-figure and nearly six-figure earners who ride the bus daily. (And several bicyclists.) This includes people who need to visit construction sites frequently, which sometimes means ZipCar.

[pesto]

A couple of thoughs:

"L.A. provides more complete, if sluggish, transportation access to the carless than any other major metropolitan area in the country". That sounds like they're doing a good job, not a bad one.

And LA is about 72 percent minorities, not counting Indian, Middle Eastern and others grouped under "white" but presumably included in "people of color". So what is the problem with 92 percent of bus riders being "people of color"? These people tend to be immigrants and less likely to have driving skills or money, particularly for making an initial investment. I would expect them to largely take the bus. Just like I would expect bus riders in Latin America, South Asia or pretty much anywhere to have mostly below average income on the buses. Similarly I would expect cities with fewer "people of color" to have fewer of them on the buses.

As noted above, buses and cars are complementary; generally those who can afford them prefer the speed and privacy of a car. Those who can't, take the bus. Anything that improves the efficiency of both modalities is good. Anything that improves one and hurts the other must be reviewed to determine how great the effects are.

[miketoronto]

Originally Posted by mhays

I work with several six-figure and nearly six-figure earners who ride the bus daily. (And several bicyclists.) This includes people who need to visit construction sites frequently, which sometimes means ZipCar.

This is actually a great comment, because it touches on something that is said to happen more often than people think.

In cities where transit does not have much of a stigma, and even in ones that do have some stigma, often you can get high earning professionals to take the bus to work.

A study was done a couple years ago in Hamilton, Ontario, a city that has some stigma with the bus system for a Canadian city. The study found that high income white collar workers had a higher percentage of workers who commute to work via transit, compared to lower income workers. In fact it is often times lower income workers who need to commute to work by car, do to working in out of town locations, or in industrial parks, etc.

[Minato Ku]

In Central Paris (inside the circular metro lines 2 and 6). The bus is not all seen for a transport for poor.
It is seen as a transport for old people. Younger people use the metro wich is faster and has a similar coverage.

I often use the bus line number 68 and after Denfert Rochereau (metro line 6), I see a major demographic shift
The passengers on the bus are not anymore racially and age mixed after this stop.
White people over 60 years old are really over represented.

[miketoronto]

In Toronto I have been noticing much more less of a mixture on the buses than before, and it seems to be happening because of whites resisting living in mixed neighbourhoods.

On one of the bus routes that goes by my house, I have noticed that most times, almost all the white people get off at stops for homes near the lake. Once the bus turns up the main road away from the lake, I am almost always the only white person left on the bus.

What I find interesting in Toronto's case, is that on many bus routes, you will see every nationality you can think of. But the only race missing is white people. And this does not have to do with poverty. Even bus routes which service solid middle to upper middle class areas, also have this happening. Everyone taking the bus except whites.
Then you go to the inner city, and its only white people on many transit routes, with a smattering of other nationalities, but much more weighted towards whites.

Toronto was not like this before. When I first started taking transit, there was a good representation of all nationalities including white people on the buses. One reason I can think for the situation we are in now, is that many of the older suburban areas like mine still have white people, but they are all older and therefore are retired and not commuting on the buses like before, or are not out at 11 pm coming from downtown, etc.

It is interesting though.

[goat314]

Definitely a racial component to many public transit debates, especially in cities with large urban Black populations.

[ssiguy]

Although the strong LRT lobby {and the politicians they bribe} bend over backward to state that people will not take the bus nor will it create infill that is not the case. L.A.'s Orange and El Monte lines prove that as does Cleveland's Healthline. The Healthline has helped create billions of new investment in along the once great Euclid Ave. The street is now bustling with new commercial and residential construction despite there being thousands of vacant homes in the city. It cost a lot less than LRT or streetcar and with much of the money saved they were able to beautify the streets with wider and new sidewalks, attractive stations, public art, and small parks.

Much to the resentment of the LRT lobby, it has been a huge success and ridership on the line has doubled since it opened 3 years ago and it was already the busiest bus route in the city. Kansas City's MAX has greatly increased ridership along the corridor due to it's better service and unique and easily identifiable stations...........no small feat in such a sprawling city that has very low transit numbers.