Universities and Hospitals Need to Kick Their Auto Addiction

Universities and hospital systems are the biggest non-governmental employers in most American city centers today. Their quadrangles and gleaming towers could be mistaken for secondary downtowns in cities like Philadelphia , Baltimore , and Houston . These anchor institutions have recently committed to equity and environmental justice, promising decarbonization and launching diversity initiatives. Yet they ignore the source of their worst impact on surrounding urban neighborhoods and the environment: private automobiles.

The Anchors of Car Dependence

American universities and hospitals have benefited from subsidized auto-centric policies for decades. The postwar development of the urban interstate system was a critical factor in linking central city legacy campuses to the suburbs. The new highways, often built at the expense of Black communities and still negatively impacting them today, made it possible for these urban anchors to thrive in a suburbanizing age.

Government research grants and subsidized urban renewal programs helped pay for parking and building programs through destructive programs of so-called "slum clearance ," which also disproportionately impacted Black neighborhoods. Cities did their part for car culture by mandating parking development (parking "minimums") for the new anchor buildings.

A hidden, multi-billion annual subsidy has flowed through the federal tax code to drivers, allowing anchor employees to pay reduced prices for transit or parking . Unfortunately, most Americans use their benefit to park in relatively cheap, secured, large campus lots and ramps rather than ride a bus or train.

Fear of urban disorder was a factor in creating these urban citadels. Today, a moat of parking ramps and towers, often connected by skywalks, defend massive complexes like the John Hopkins Medical Campus in East Baltimore.

Urban anchor institutions, despite the bias toward autos, have often benefited from new investments in mass transit. The rail lines, either new or modernized, serve institutions like MIT, Temple, University of Houston , and Johns Hopkins . These lines were often built or maintained (with a mix of federal and state grants), while bus systems that carried most city passengers withered. Yet only a few anchor stops are popular, like those at MIT and Harvard; many rail lines have struggled to compete with cheap, subsidized campus parking and highways.

The impact of the car-centric policies includes ugly parking ramps and surface lots that create urban and suburban dead zones that must be surveilled for safety. Those cars also undermine campus vitality by draining students to surrounding malls and attractions. There are also environmental impacts of all that traffic, including tailpipe emissions in surrounding neighborhoods, noise, and vehicular injury.

There are campus transit riders (and bikers and walkers), including students and lower-paid service workers. Free campus bus shuttle systems are popular despite limited service areas and times. But the market for transportation alternatives still needs to be tapped.

There is a Better Way

Anchors immediately need to stop planning and building new parking. Cities can help institutions break the cycle by eliminating parking minimums. Institutions should also pass along the cost of maintaining parking facilities through higher parking fees. As cost and availability decrease, many drivers may shift how they commute or where they live, including alternatives like living closer, transit, walking, and bikes.

Free, low-cost, or sliding-scale transit passes for all faculty and staff offer a "carrot" approach. By buying transit services in bulk, universities and hospitals would provide crucial subsidies to struggling transit agencies. Volume purchase of passes helps share the wealth with their surrounding communities by creating a more substantial transit service overall.

Currently, most universities only provide pre-tax federal transit benefits, or modest discounts, for staff (that can also be used for parking). By contrast, free or reduced cost for transit passes for staff and students, as is done successfully at MIT and Carnegie Mellon , can be a game changer. The cessation of parking development could be matched by safe bike facilities and dedicated lanes for walking and biking through campus.

Providing free passes to students and employees will not be enough in most regions. University officials in cities and suburbs must work with local transit agencies to boost service quality, which might mean subsidizing additional services. Anchors can also improve transit stops, keep them clean, and add housing and mixed-use activities near the stops, increasing safety. The success of Cleveland's Health Line , for instance, linking multiple campuses with Bus Rapid Transit service, reflects the promise of transit agency/anchor collaboration. Dedicated lanes for sections of the line, new buses, and rapid boarding have attracted riders and investment.

Anchors are the missing link in transportation alternatives. But leaders must look beyond campus boundaries to accelerate decarbonization and social equity.

Nicholas Dagen Bloom is a Professor of Urban Policy and Planning at Hunter College and author, most recently, of The Great American Transit Disaster (Chicago, 2023).