Car Pools and Public Transit Ignored : Most Drivers Continue to Go It Alone Despite Growing Traffic Jams

When Bill McBride saw a bulletin promoting a van-pool program for county employees back in 1982, the assistant land surveyor hardly gave it a thought.

“I had a pretty comfortable routine going already,” said McBride, who lives in Escondido and works 26 miles away in Kearny Mesa. “It didn’t sound like my kind of thing.”

But then McBride got to wondering: Just how much money could van pooling save him in gasoline bills, insurance and wear and tear on his car? The San Diego native did a little figuring and, impressed by the numbers, decided to give ride sharing a shot.

He’s never looked back.

“I wouldn’t go back to driving alone for a million bucks,” said McBride, who said he saves up to $1,000 a year by sharing a ride to work with four others in a comfy Ford LTD. “Car pooling is real low-stress. I plan my day during the morning ride and wind down coming home at night. It’s the only way to go.”

Bill McBride is a rarity--a San Diego County resident who has chosen to leave his car at home and use an alternative form of transportation to get to the office.

While car pooling and public transit are a way of life in many metropolitan areas, San Diego’s regional system of trolleys, buses and ride-sharing programs has yet to attract recruits in impressive numbers.

In fact, despite construction of the popular San Diego Trolley, the percentage of San Diego County residents using public transit has actually declined in recent years. Although 2% of all trips regionwide were on transit in the late 1960s, that figure is just over 1% today. By comparison, 6.4% of all trips in the nine counties in the San Francisco Bay Area are on public transportation.

As for commuters, 7% of all work trips in the county are on transit; in the Bay Area, 12.5% of all commuters leave their cars at home. Perhaps more telling, 82% of transit users in the San Diego area are so-called “captive” riders--meaning they are taking the bus, trolley or train because they have no choice.

Despite the loyalty of McBride and other car-pooling converts, the news on the ride-sharing front is gloomy as well. Transportation planners predict the percentage of local motorists sharing a ride to work or to school will actually drop in coming years.

According to an extensive ridership survey by the San Diego Assn. of Governments (Sandag), the region’s transit system is beset by a very fundamental problem--the service is neither convenient enough nor extensive enough to lure riders in significant numbers.

That quandary, however, is one that transit companies can do little to remedy. Given recent cuts in state and federal funding, officials say they simply cannot afford to field new routes or extend service hours unless there is a demonstrated ridership demand. But the demand isn’t there because the service isn’t attractive.

“It’s a vicious circle,” said Mike Gillespie, public relations officer for North County Transit District. “How do you beat it? If I knew that, I’d be the richest consultant in America.”

One reason for the public’s reluctance to opt for a bus ride or car pool, experts say, is clear: The traffic congestion on San Diego County freeways is not yet bad enough to prompt commuters to hunt for alternatives to the single-occupant automobile.

Although they might be inclined to take out-of-town relatives for a trolley ride to Tijuana or pile onto a bus to the stadium for a Chargers game, San Diegans have not yet found a compelling reason to use public transit during the work week.

“The fact of the matter is Southern Californians are wedded to their vehicles because they like independence and they like mobility,” said Byron Nordberg, an Oceanside-based transportation consultant. “I’m afraid we may not see any major shift (to transit) until people choke on their own tin.”

Low fuel prices and the inviting gasoline mileage of today’s economy cars also conspire against public transit. In addition, one of the key factors motivating commuters in many cities to leave the car in the garage--the opportunity to save a buck--is a less potent incentive in the relatively wealthy San Diego area, transportation planners say.

Instead, time is the commodity of highest value to many local motorists. But until freeway congestion reaches the point where commuters can get from point A to point B faster on an express bus, trolley or train than by car, transit officials have relatively little to offer on that front.

Finally, and perhaps most frustrating for those seeking to increase San Diegans’ usage of their transit system, there is the powerful allure of the automobile, an allure that simply cannot be matched by a lumbering city bus. And Sandag figures show that San Diegans’ love affair with cars is heating up. There were an average of 1.3 vehicles per household in 1966; the number is 2.0 today.

“It’s like a God-given right--you’re born with a steering wheel in your hand in Southern California,” Gillespie said. “We’ve created this feeling that if you don’t own and drive an automobile, you are less than (those who do). So tell me, how do you fight that and get people on a bus?”

The answer has, for the most part, eluded regional transportation officials, who seem resigned to the fact that only the agony of gridlock will force people to abandon their cars.

Consequently, rather than spending millions of dollars marketing a service relatively few commuters seem inclined to try, they are focusing attention on maintaining a good reputation, expanding service and developing an integrated transit system that will be ready and waiting when San Diegans do make the switch.

Key to those plans is a half-cent sales tax increase traffic planners hope to have before voters in November, 1987. Revenue from the increase would be used to help finance a $10-billion menu of local road and highway projects as well as extensions of the San Diego Trolley and other improvements to the county’s transit network.

“If we make the right decisions now and develop a regionwide transit system, San Diegans will have the opportunity 20 years down the line to make public transportation a first choice,” said Jean Carr, communications director for Sandag. “Nowadays, people here tend to forget there is more than one way to get to a given destination. But when the real congestion hits, people will be looking for alternatives.”

Here is a summary of the myriad of options to driving alone that either already exist or have potential for alleviating future congestion:

San Diego Trolley

With its shiny red cars and distinctly urban character, the trolley has quickly become the one element of San Diego County’s transit system that everyone loves to tout.

And no wonder. Cost-effective because it requires little labor to operate, fuel-efficient and immune to the traffic that can mire buses and car pools, the San Diego Trolley is a success story for the region and its operator, the Metropolitan Transit Development Board (MTDB).

Built under budget, ahead of schedule and without a penny of federal funding, both the 16-mile line to the border and the new spur line to Euclid Avenue were constructed at about one-tenth the cost of similar light-rail systems around the country, officials boast.

Ridership on the 4.5-mile spur line to Euclid Avenue, which opened in March, is now double that of predictions, carrying about 3,000 daily. The original South Bay line has carried more than 24 million passengers since it opened in 1981, and fares, ranging from 50 cents to $1.50, will cover 90% of the system’s operating costs this year. Total ridership is about 20,000 daily.

Moreover, while 82% of all transit riders are “captive,” the figure is far lower--66%--for the trolley, popular among tourists.

Key to MTDB’s financial success has been construction of the trolley entirely above ground and the use of existing rights of way. The system was financed with a combination of gasoline tax monies and a lease-back arrangement for its 30 German-built cars. It has cost about $6 million per mile to build.

Ultimately, Sandag envisions trolley lines stretching out of downtown San Diego like legs from the body of an octopus. Assuming the sales tax increase passes, plans call for expansion of the system from 20 to 106 miles over the next 20 years.

By 1995, the 15-mile East Urban Line to El Cajon should be completed, with stops in Lemon Grove and La Mesa, a total of nine stations along the route and a 3.3-mile extension to Santee. The line is expected to relieve congestion along California 94 and Interstate 8.

Also on the books is construction of a 14-mile trolley line in Mission Valley, from the Old Town line at Interstate 5 to Grossmont Center in La Mesa, where it would connect to the East County line. The route also would be expected to reduce the demand on Interstate 8.

A spur line from downtown, along Harbor Drive to the San Diego Airport and continuing west to Rosecrans Street on Point Loma should be completed by 1995, as well as a “Bayside” trolley running from the Amtrak station downtown past Seaport Village and the convention center site, to L Street, where it will cut east to hook up with the existing lines on 12th Avenue.

Looking further out to 2005, Sandag is exploring alignment possibilities for a 38-mile light-rail line up the Interstate 5 corridor to Oceanside. The line would run from downtown San Diego to Old Town along the Santa Fe railroad right-of-way, then parallel Interstate 5 north through University City and North City West, then follow the Santa Fe tracks between Del Mar and Oceanside. Stations would be located every one to three miles along the route and service would run every 15 minutes between downtown and Sorrento Valley, and every 30 minutes between Sorrento Valley and Oceanside.

The system would carry an estimated 18.6 million riders a year, cost $470 million to build and $7.4 million a year to operate, for an annualized cost per rider of about $4.40, according to Sandag’s figures.

Also planned for North County is an extension eastward between Oceanside and Escondido. The line would follow the Santa Fe tracks from Escondido to Vista and then run alongside California 78 between Vista and Plaza Camino Real. Still under debate is a trolley line up Interstate 15 between Interstate 8 and Escondido.

Despite the sunny picture, Sandag surveys show that many South Bay commuters who use the southern route merely switched over from the bus to the trolley when the light rail line opened in 1981. The South Bay bus line, No. 32, was San Diego Transit’s most popular route--indeed, the only route that ever turned a profit for the bus company--and was deleted when the trolley opened.

And as for hopes that a trolley line up the Interstate 5 corridor will significantly alleviate traffic congestion, Sandag sounds a note of caution: A one-way ride from Oceanside to San Diego on the proposed line would take 90 minutes, with trains stopping at stations every 15 minutes.

“Whether people will put up with that for longer trips, like commute trips, is doubtful,” said Mike Zdon, a senior planner at Sandag.

Commuter Rail/Amtrak

According to Sandag, commuter rail holds great promise for the Interstate 5 corridor. The concept involves the use of existing Amtrak equipment and diesel trains along the Santa Fe railroad tracks. Three segments of the tracks would be improved with double-tracking to increase capacity.

Under Sandag’s proposal, a trolley line would run from downtown San Diego to University City, linking with the commuter rail service. The rail line would then extend north to Oceanside, stopping at stations every five miles.

The proposed system would allow for six suburban round-trip trains daily, plus normally scheduled Amtrak round-trips and two freight-train runs. Sandag planners say commuter rail is attractive because it would be cheaper to build and operate and provide quicker service.

The trains would carry about 10.4 million riders a year, cost about $190 million to build and $5.4 million to operate annually, for an annualized cost per rider of $2.70--significantly less than the trolley.

However, it would carry fewer passengers than light rail--9.1 million versus 12.6 million annually--and any expansion of service would require substantial capital investment. Because of that, Sandag planners favor construction of the coastal trolley line. Commuter rail is also being studied for the California 78 corridor in North County.

Amtrak officials, meanwhile, recently announced plans to add an eighth round-trip train to its popular “San Diegan” run between San Diego and Los Angeles. The corridor is Amtrak’s second busiest in the U.S., carrying more than 100,000 people per month.

Formerly, Amtrak service has not been timed to correlate with commute hours in San Diego because a morning train would have to leave Los Angeles so early, attracting few riders.

Now, however, Sandag’s Zdon said studies indicate a “pent-up demand” for rail service among Orange County commuters and as many as 500 North County residents who work in San Diego. Zdon said predictions show the eighth train, which will arrive at the downtown depot by 8:15 a.m., would recover 90% of its operating costs through fares. Service is scheduled to begin in April.

Buses

“Give me your tired, you poor, your huddled masses . . . the wretched refuse of your teeming shore.”

Sadly for promoters of bus service, that line from the famous poem, “New Colossus,” by Emma Lazarus aptly describes a stubborn image of ridership that has haunted bus companies in San Diego County.

“I’m really sick of hearing that only the young, the old and the poor ride the bus,” said Gillespie of North County Transit District (NCTD). “Because yuppies with BMWs in their garage ride the bus too. They’re environmentalists and they feel good about it.”

Still, the fact remains that eight out of 10 riders are using the bus to get to work or to school or across town because they haven’t got an option. Consequently, many bus company officials are fighting to change their image, which they say is dated and makes people leery of the bus. Crippled by funding cuts, bus companies concede that they must increase ridership to guarantee a healthy future.

NCTD’s new fleet of buses, which first hit the streets five years ago, is an example of contemporary marketing efforts. Sleek with darkened windows, a snazzy logo and fresh paint, they are modern and almost hip looking, defying the stereotype of their noisy, fuming predecessors.

“It was no accident we chose this design,” said NCTD’s Gillespie. “They look modern and we’re trying to project a modern image.”

Despite such nice aesthetics, however, buses are not exactly experiencing a boom in usage. Hurt by falling gasoline prices and a host of other factors, NCTD’s ridership has fallen off over the past 10 months, dipping 8%. Ridership on San Diego Transit buses has also plummeted, suffering from funding cuts and, in many cases, at the expense of the trolley’s popularity.

When the trolley came on line, San Diego Transit lost 20% of its riders. On an average weekday in 1980, its buses carried 110,000 passengers; today the number is 82,000.

The trouble, in many cases, is convenience. Service levels have either been cut or are not yet strong enough--in frequency, hours of operation and territory covered--to woo riders. While there are county “express” buses from Oceanside, Escondido and Poway to downtown San Diego, riders who have sampled the service say it simply takes too long and is not really “express” at all, stopping at several points to collect riders.

Still, NCTD, San Diego Transit, the County Transit System express buses and companies serving National City, Chula Vista and the Silver Strand carried 29 million passengers in 1985. Another 12 so-called “demand-response” carriers, essentially dial-a-ride services for the elderly and residents of rural areas, carried nearly 700,000 passengers last year.

Looking ahead, Sandag planners are calling for improvements in regional bus service, including the construction of more regional transit centers and addition of more express routes, such as from the Del Mar/North City West area to downtown, via the University Town Center and Old Towne transit centers; from the South Bay area to University Town Center via Fashion Valley and Kearny Mesa; from the Santee/Lakeside area to downtown, and from Rancho San Diego to downtown.

Sandag officials say that as congestion increases, buses will become an increasingly important element in the region’s public transportation system, particularly when the high-occupancy vehicle lanes on Interstate 15, which allow car pools and buses preferential usage, are completed.

Ride Sharing

The Caltrans Commuter Computer--the people behind the 237-POOL signs--was established during the energy crisis in 1975 to promote transit and ride sharing. The program operates as a clearing house for information on ride sharing and helps establish car pools, van pools and bus pools for companies and individuals. It produces computerized lists and maps to help match prospective car poolers and helps businesses market ride-sharing programs to their employees.

Since its inception, Commuter Computer has placed 62,200 people in car pools; there are 50 van pools in the region and 25 bus pools.

Manny Demetre, Commuter Computer’s energetic director, says these are tough times for promoters of ride sharing.

“Gas is cheap, congestion’s not too bad and the economy is good, so people are buying cars,” Demetre said. “Parking isn’t too much of a problem downtown, either, so there really aren’t many disincentives yet. That makes it difficult to get people to alter their commute habits.”

For Bill McBride--and his four fellow car poolers interviewed during a recent drive to work--ride sharing means saving money. The 52-mile round-trip commute, which begins a quarter-mile from his home, costs McBride a mere $33

a month. In addition to saving on gas, McBride vastly extends the life of his car and can get breaks on insurance because he doesn’t use his automobile for work.

Another car pooler, General Dynamics employee Howard Moore, notes that “it gets you out of late meetings and working overtime. When you gotta go, you gotta go.”

But Demetre said there are many reasons people avoid ride sharing. No. 1 on the list is convenience--people don’t like the thought of being without a car during the middle of the day.

Then there are interpersonal concerns: Will I get along with my fellow car poolers? Will everyone be on time? What if someone smells or has bad breath? Will anyone smoke? Though seemingly trivial, these are among the factors that make many commuters nervous about ride sharing.

Indeed, McBride admits that he’s not wild about the radio station his driver plays each morning and on occasion feels a little cramped sandwiched between two fellow car poolers in the back seat.

“We have a few sleepers in our car pool, and occasionally one will tip over,” McBride said.

Darell Ayers, a 15-year ride-sharing veteran, says an unreliable driver can be a problem as well: “I’ve done a fair share of cringing over the years.”

To reach the most commuters possible, Demetre appeals to large employers, attempting to persuade companies to organize van pools or provide incentives to workers who car pool or use transit. Incentives include flexible hours, preferential parking and subsidies for buses. Usually, he said, employers will respond only if they have a problem.

“In Sorrento Valley, it’s congestion. Downtown and on Torrey Pines mesa it’s parking. On North Island, it’s the bridge congestion. We analyze a situation and make our pitch based on whatever negatives a company is facing,” Demetre said.

Sandag officials say that like transit, ride sharing will not achieve widespread popularity until it is advantageous to commuters.

On the jampacked Oakland Bay Bridge, for example, 62% of all peak hour cars contain two or more people. The reason? Car poolers pay no toll and receive a preferential lane through the toll booth. The lone drivers, meanwhile, wait in the toll plaza lines for up to 20 minutes.

Bicycling

While there is no estimate of the number of people who commute by bike, Commuter Computer officials say that major employers believe 1% of their workers use two wheels and pedals to get to the office. Sandag predicts that the bicycle will become an increasingly popular form of transportation in sunny San Diego, where there are currently 200,000 bike trips--both recreational and work-related--per day.

To serve the cyclist, Caltrans has placed 450 bike lockers at park-and-ride lots and trolley stops around the region. Maps of bikeways are also available. And Demetre urges employers to make biking more attractive by installing showers and secure facilities for bicycles.

“A bike locker for two bikes costs $400,” Demetre said. “Compare that to the cost of a parking space and an employer can see the payoff.”

Other

A panoply of other transportation alternatives are on the drawing boards and computer screens of consultants and university professors around the nation.

One that holds some promise is “flex-time”--the arrangement of hours to alleviate congestion during peak commute periods. Popularized during the 1984 Olympics in Los Angeles, flex-time is already in use at the North Island Naval Air Station, beset by terrible commute snarls on the Coronado Bay Bridge.

But whether flex-time really works on a grand scale is unclear. Demetre said that during the 10-hour day, four-day workweeks tested during the Olympics, “people didn’t stay home on the fifth day. They drove to the beach or the mall. That’s not much help.”

Another possibility envisions the development of telecommunications systems enabling people to work at home. With the increasing usage of computers and the arrival of visual telephone systems, this alternative seems intriguing. But Sandag planners caution that the jury is still out.

“Will people be content to stay home? And what impact will it have on congestion levels? Those questions haven’t been answered.” Sandag planner Zdon said.

Progressive land-use policies that team new industrial developments with employee housing are also attracting attention. Door-to-door shuttle services between home and workplace, on-site restaurants, flexible work hours and bike lockers are all features that could be integrated into developments to minimize their contribution to traffic congestion.

Times staff writer Tom Gorman contributed to this report.