Transit as if poor people mattered
Can We Transform the Auto-Industrial Society?
An enduring bailout, or a new deal for Detroit, would be different. It would be an investment in ending the auto-industrial society of the late twentieth century. This would involve innovation in public transportation, and in the infrastructure that would enable people to work at home or close to home. It would engage the information industries in making public transport more convenient, more enticing, and more secure. It would be open to the sorts of improvements that have been suggested in the expansion of rail and bus transportation in China, Japan, and France, for example, and in India by the information technology services companies. It would be an investment, even, in the old promise of “automotive” freedom, of owning a car but not having to use it, and of being able to go anywhere at any time, in Asia as in America. The improved public transport would be used for routine travel, such as the “work, school, and medical/dental trips” on which public transit use is already concentrated, according to the National Household Travel Survey.
…
A bailout organized around urban and public infrastructure would be inclusive, in that it would provide opportunities for the people who have had the fewest chances in the new economy of the last thirty years, and who have suffered most from the new inequality of income, wealth, and amenities. It would include poor people in “nonmetropolitan” counties, for whom the costs of having no access to public transportation are extraordinarily high; and the rapidly increasing population of the “oldest old,” many of them living in cities that have been built, almost anew, since the 1970s, with little or no public transportation.
The inequality of income has been made worse, over the past generation, by the inequality of urban amenities. African-Americans who use public transit spend more than a third longer waiting for buses and trains than white transit users; they spend the same amount of time traveling, but travel for shorter distances; African-American men between the ages of twenty-five and forty-four spend even more time than white or Hispanic men in cars: 107 minutes a day. These inequalities would be further exacerbated by the increase in the costs of driving that is an unavoidable consequence of policies to reduce carbon emissions. The poorest fifth of Americans spend 31 percent of their income on transport, compared to 21 percent for the second poorest, 17 percent for the third poorest, 15 percent for the fourth poorest, and 10 percent for the richest Americans.
Investment in the infrastructure of a post-auto-industrial society would provide some compensation for the regressive effects of a carbon tax (or of the increase in prices that would result from a “cap and trade” scheme, as industries passed on the costs of compliance to consumers). It would be an investment in the technologies that are used by poor people, including buses, bus stops, and information about the departures of buses and transit vans. The innovations in information technology that could so dramatically improve public or collective transportation could be used first in the centers of cities: buses with free wi-fi, for example, or with free computers; better information about connections between buses and trains; or a program of scheduling journeys in which all patients with hospital or doctors’ appointments could be collected at home, in electric or hybrid vehicles. Public policy would enhance one of the resources in which people who are poor and black are richer than other Americans: the resource of living in densely populated and information-rich cities.
Thanks for this Donal. Was discussing this at work yesterday. We've got rising Seniors, immigrant (most from non-car cultures), student & unemployed populations. Which means, large & rising %'s for whom cars are inadequate.
As barriers here, there's not just the routes, fares, etc... but also the climate, as in many Northern Tier states. The idea that we can put aging, sick or very young people in unheated stations at -40, with no information systems, even for 10 minutes, is just not viable. So we were looking at above-ground transit stations from other jurisdictions, well-designed & heated smaller shelters, info systems on the spot or sent to phones, etc.
More deeply, the debate is around... why are we charging fares AT ALL. London took them away for seniors, the unemployed, and students & had a huge response. You get a stream of benefits from eliminating fares: 1) Reduced trip time for all passengers (and backed up car traffic); 2) A basic cash transfer to low income groups (who've been stiffed for years); 3) Vastly increased use shift from cars to transit - with reduced greenhouse gas emissions, improved mobility for millions of people to employers/schools/etc., social benefits through increased connections, fewer accidents, and.... a significant reduction in congestion as people shift out of cars.
Right now, transit passengers pay (from what I've found) ~$11 billion in fares annually - not that much. Existing subsidies - capital & operating - are $30 billion. Let's say free fares doubled transit use. Costs would probably rise by ~50% of that $40 billion total - let's say to $60 billion a year. So net NEW costs of $30 billion a year - to handle 10 billion more trips, of which X billion would be car trips taken off the road.
On every score - income transfer, greenhouse gases, traffic congestion, mobility of seniors & their ability to live independently, movement of young people & immigrants into the economy, safety & health, air quality - you get BIG gains. For $30 billion a year. That's 0.2% of GDP. Less than we'd throw at a single bank to save its ass. Same story for health care, what's the cost to go to universal single payer - $60-$150 billion a year? Do 'em both for 1% of GDP.
Just bloody do it, eh?
February 4, 2009 7:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow Donal and Quinn.
Sign me up!!!
I used to love riding BART. I always knew when to wake up in the morning, cuz it sounded different running under the Bay.
Maybe underground transport makes more sense in cold regions, Q.
February 4, 2009 9:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Free transport. That provides a way for the poor to get out to the suburbs where the jobs are.
February 4, 2009 9:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
ditto
February 4, 2009 10:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
"You've not seen nutt'in like the mighty quinn!"
Add geothermal heating for underground stations and geothermal, wave, and wind energy generation and the whole system would be a socially transformational event.
February 4, 2009 10:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
And get this, MJN. The London Tube system ( I only reference London because I used to work there, but I suspect it's the case for any subway) has two interesting "problems": (1) The tube tunnels get too hot, and all that hot air has to be pumped out; and, (2) They have a rising water table, so the PRE-HEATED water has to be pumped out too. And the dumb beggars had been pumping the hot water up & out into the sewer system, where it ran down into the Thames.
In short, they had already developed a massive "geo-thermal heat pump" system, but were throwing all that energy away. And paying for the privilege. That water can be run through a heat exchanger, and the energy used to heat the surrounding high-rise apartments - and the hot air can be run over heat exchangers as well, to capture more energy.
But our Transport systems are so starved for cash, and so pressured - from every direction - that even glaring opportunities like this aren't being captured. It's crackers. And opportunities like that are literally all around us.
February 5, 2009 12:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
BOLLOCKS!
It would create a lot of new jobs designing, manufacturing, selling, buying, shipping, and installing heat exchangers.
That this by-product resource doesn't require, mining, drilling, transporting, and storing is a zero cost benefit not only to the consumers, but the national economy as well. This doesn't take into account that that waste heat will soon be to expensive to waste.
Now that's smart thermodynamics.
February 5, 2009 1:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
The British have a limited concept of thermodynamics. I blame The Queen.
AND NEVER MIND THE BOLLOCKS! ;-)
We're the future. YOUR future.
February 5, 2009 1:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Can we please send this blog and comments directly to Mayor Bloomberg's brain?
NYC's MTA is still threatening to raise the fares, including a disproportionate increase on those who have the least ability to pay; the disabled. However, as far as I know, no word on when the threats might become reality. Is the MTA just waiting to see how much they get from the Feds?
Slightly off-topic: Is promoting Car Ownership Republican and promoting Mass Transit Democratic?
Why don't GOPs support mass transit? Or is that just my imagination?
February 5, 2009 12:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good question. I could be that cars are manufactured in red states (which now they are) while trains and buses aren't.
February 5, 2009 1:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Pretty much everything is getting cut in the NYS budget because of our budget crisis, so the MTA is not excluded. But last year NYC turned away almost $350 million in federal mass transit aid when we rejected Bloomberg's congestion pricing plan. The opponents framed it as a "regressive tax" even though most moderate and lower income New Yorkers already rely on public transport to get to work(55% of NYers overall).
If discouraging driving is hard in NYC where we make up 1/3 of the people nationally who commute to work by mass transport & people were simultaneously griping about over $4/gal gas, it shows how hard it is to change driving behavior.
February 5, 2009 12:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
No doubt there is wealth generated in the lower socioeconomic classes through forced public transportation.
The greater part of it is garnered by providing the people from the hood the opportunity to prey on the commuting working class through pickpocketing, mugging, intimidation robbery, and the occasional recreational rape of our females as reflected in national rape statistics.
It is possible for commuters forced to drive through hoods to keep their doors locked and windows rolled up while holding their breath. Forced public transportation along with unconstitutional firearms control eliminates these small protections.
February 5, 2009 9:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
No one advocated "forced public transportation," so your racist fear card is misplayed.
I'd rather walk or ride a bike, myself, but for those that can't afford automobiles and/or gasoline, transit is a reasonable and very popular alternative.
February 5, 2009 10:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Free is always a good alternative. I'm thinking you're looking for a free ride.
Yes public transportation is forced because it takes funds away from the private transportation infrastructure.
As far as 'racist', boy,, we're talking about busses and trains here. Grow up!!!
February 5, 2009 5:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
So you're the one looking for a free ride - in your car.
February 7, 2009 11:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nupe, Paid for every dime's worth of the transportation I consume. I ain't looking for a free ride or a free anything else from nobody.
February 7, 2009 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did you build the roads?
February 9, 2009 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yep, Dondi,
My tax dollars at work.
February 9, 2009 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
You really believe you paid your share of those roads? I don't.
February 9, 2009 3:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
While there's no doubt the poor and less affluent would benefit from more investment in mass transit, everyone in our society needs public transportation that is not oil dependent. It is a matter of efficiency, economic survival, environmental protection, and national security. Furthermore, the assumption that the vast majority of people and families that almost exclusively rely on automobiles for transportation today will continue to be able to afford that indefinitely is a bad one.
We are in a depression and the country is essentially bankrupt. The economy isn't in trouble, it has collapsed. This depression is going to last a long time no matter what. There are going to be millions moving downward economically. We must anticipate and plan for the obvious changes that are headed our way. Public transportation (no emissions buses, light rail, etc...) are an absolutely essential and integral part of any recovery we hope to see.
February 5, 2009 10:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good post Donal. I think I may have tagged this site in my blog yesterday, but Transportation for America has a great Google Map-mashup of municipalities facing transit cuts and/or fare increases: http://t4america.org/transitcuts
There has been an ongoing battle in the Senate (that I haven't had time to closely follow) over the past couple of days about putting transit operating costs in the stimulus bill.
It seems a no-brainer, since the economic productivity and expansion are going to be negatively affected by fare increases/service cuts. Money can be spent immediately to restore and enhance service if it is pegged towards operation costs (of course the problem is that the operational needs are ongoing, whilst the stimulus is a one-time allocation).
February 5, 2009 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for your post, Donal.
From what little bit I know, the ridership in our small transit system is up, but not enough to justify putting in additional routes or extending existing ones.
Over in York County, the transit company over there began running buses for Maryland commuters recently - a sure bet, if there ever was one - but they didn't advertise it. So the kick off was a bust. My suspicion is that they were that short of cash. Hopefully, riders will find the service before it disappears.
To be fair, I honestly think management of our transit system is doing the best they can under the conditions they face.
But they need help.
If the stimulus bill passes with additional aid, transit systems WILL hire new people right away, and any expansion or maintenance projects are "shovel ready."
They are an investment in communities since it also involves people getting to work when the buses don't run and help for seniors and the disabled to get to doctors' appointments (shared ride programs).
It's not just the poor or minorities who ride transit systems. Passengers include the very poor to the upper middle class. It's as broad of a picture of America as you can paint.
I hope members of Congress understand this.
February 5, 2009 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
What a great blog, Donal. Migwetch (thanks). After reading it once, I came back later to reread and then to read and reread the comments. Lots of good stuff here.
Expanding public transportation in urban areas seems like such a no-brainer...I certainly would take advantage of it. But then, like the song goes, my independence seems to vanish in the haze. Weening folks off that independent American teat we've all been sucking from will make for some uncomfortable adjustments.
Ain't saying it can't be done. Just saying it ain't gonna be easy.
But, I live in the sticks and public transport for rural areas doesn't seem very feasible, or so I thought, until I considered the school buses that go by our house twice a day.
Many of our small cities have in town bus routes...glorified vans is what they are, but they have always been interested in expanding further out into the counties because there are so many elderly people living outside of town that don't or can't drive. It didn't make sense financially and government subsidies weren't a part of the solution until now. If that desire could be coupled with an electronic means of scheduling pick ups and drop offs, it could be very effective. It wouldn't be as cool as riding in a tunnel, but hey....
This has possibilities even for us loners out here in the boonies.
February 5, 2009 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink