In the period since World War II, the United States has become an automobile- dependent culture. With the overwhelming majority of population growth occurring in suburban areas between 1950 and 1990, the number of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) annually increased over 200%. On the flip side, mass transit use has declined drastically since the first half of this century is now used for under 5% of all trips.

The social costs of car dependence are enormous. While air pollution is the most notable problem impacting public and environment, congestion, road construction, habitat destruction, urban runoff, dependence on foreign oil, and auto-related injuries and deaths levy enormous costs on society each year. Environmental legislation has historically focused on reducing emissions, while little has been done to address driving behavior. As a result, steadily increasing VMTs have outpaced all air quality gains. However, recent legislation such as the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) has begun to address the role of driving behavior in air pollution. Several policy tools, in particular, have emerged as effective approaches to increasing mass transit use, most notably economic incentives, transit improvements, and land-use planning. Rather than focusing on emissions, these tools address the underlying incentives that shape individual transportation choices in this country.

In this study, I examine the potential for the use of these various tools in shaping transit use in Rhode Island. I argue that several factors suggest that mass transit Ð particularly bus transit could be made significantly more viable as an alternative to the single-occupant vehicle in this State. The long history of mass transit in Rhode Island; the small size and high population density of the State; demonstrated public support of mass transit service and funding; the existence of an established bus system; the relative flexibility, practicality and low cost of bus transit compared to other transportation modes; and recent increases in bus ridership all point to the potential increase of mass transit use. However, current funding shortages and the attitude that mass transit is a public service for social groups who have no other choice hinder the success of bus transit in the State.

I argue that mass transit is necessary to improve the quality of life of all Rhode Islanders, and conclude that several changes must occur on the federal, state and local levels in order for mass transit use to achieve significant levels. I recommend that federal policies that favor automobiles, highways and suburban development be eliminated or reduced; that mass transit funding be increased relative to highway funding; that federal legislation continue in the tradition of ISTEA to bring innovation to transportation planning; and that the role of land-use planning in shaping transit choices be acknowledged in federal decisions. On the state level, I recommend that Rhode Island commit to mass transit funding, both during the Rhode Island Public Transit Authority's (RIPTA) financial crisis and in the long term; that the State reevaluate its role in directing growth and sprawl; and that the State establish a goal for mass transit use or a target ceiling for SOV use which it will seriously strive to attain. Finally, I offer specific recommendations for RIPTA, most notably that it improve the availability and quality of mass transit information, create more economic incentives through innovative programs and partnerships, improve its intermodal facilities, and introduce more amenities from an enclosed central station to better upkeep of shelters.