Bozeman is an attractive place to live. Its natural beauty and community character foster rapid growth. Increased traffic is one unpleasant consequence. In response, some have proposed a public bus system. Is this really the best solution to our traffic woes?

How many people travel only from home to work and back home on a daily basis? Running errands at lunchtime or after work may require stops in downtown Bozeman, on North 19th and at a grocery store somewhere else. Children must be taken to sports practice, music and art lessons, etc. Modern life is too complex and rich with opportunities -- for free time, commerce, employment, etc. -- for a linear, rigid transportation system to be helpful. The argument for public transit often has moral tones. But is it ethical to encourage people to forgo these opportunities?

In hoping to change human behavior, supporters of public transportation engage in the same fallacy as those who promised that "rain follows the plough." They believe that creating a bus system will get people out of their cars and into buses. The facts speak otherwise.

Missoula has been praised for its "smoothly running, highly used bus system." But according to the 2000 Census, only 1.2 to 2.7 percent of commuters in Missoula use public transportation. In Portland, Ore., the poster child of so-called "smart growth," it's a mere 2.8 to 5.7 percent. Nationwide, only about 5 percent take public transportation to work (half that if you don't count New York City). Taking the bus wastes time we could spend skiing, hiking, fishing, or with our families.

With normal ridership rates, a bus system in Bozeman would require heavy subsidies. Fares are expected to cover only 5 percent of the annual costs, with the majority of the rest coming from local property owners and taxpayers nationwide. Some people seek the "feel good" of having public transportation. Others simply want to shift their transportation costs to taxpayers.

The statistics the Bozeman Transit Task Force cites to support its plan are less than convincing. For example, 56 percent of trips to work are under 15 minutes. With commute times this short, who would increase theirs by taking the bus? Seventy percent of people here drive alone. How many of these will switch to the bus? In the San Francisco Bay Area, with buses, trains, a subway, streetcars, ferries, and some of the country's worst traffic, 60 percent of commuters still choose to drive alone.

Few people willingly abandon their cars for public transit. Knowing this, our Transit Task Force recommends "a complimentary [sic] transportation demand management (TDM) program that will coordinate, promote, and implement strategies such as carpooling, vanpooling, bicycle and pedestrian transportation, telecommuting, and flexible work hours to help reduce peak congestion." It's no surprise that a U.S. Department of Transportation study concluded that TDM is not very effective. Such social engineering rarely works in a complex society. But transportation system management does, e.g., synchronizing traffic lights and increasing road capacity.

There is a valid argument for taxpayer funding of public transportation to serve the "transportation disadvantaged," i.e., the disabled, elderly, and those who can't afford a car. But why do we assume that it should be operated by the government? Anthony Downs, an economist at the Brookings Institution, argues that "we need to deregulate or even privatize public transit and allow small-scale operators that will serve low-density and low-income areas on demand." In "The Vanishing Automobile and Other Urban Myths," economist Randal O'Toole recommends a mixed system of jitneys with fixed routes but flexible schedules (e.g., our REACH), demand-responsive minibuses providing door-to-door service with stops to pick up and drop off other passengers (e.g., GALAVAN), and some fixed-route/fixed-schedule service (such as that provided by Bobcat and REACH).

As the Transit Task Force acknowledges, "there are ... numerous transit service providers within the area offering a wide variety of specialized transit services." Let's expand these to better serve the disadvantaged rather than create a whole new system.

Americans value the freedom their cars provide. This is unlikely to change. What's more, as our prosperity increases, so do the opportunities for our free time. Our lives become richer and more complex. A rigid public transportation system doesn't make sense. The flexibility of automobiles and other decentralized systems does.