Recent Comment
Share
Our country’s mass transit systems are in serious trouble. New York, Chicago, St. Louis, Washington DC, Charlotte, Boston, Atlanta, San Francisco.. the list goes on. Bus and rail lines everywhere are being forced to raise fares, lay off hundreds of employees and eliminate stops (sometimes even full lines).
But the truly worst part of it all is that more people than ever before are using public transit. That means that more people are relying on those buses and trains to get to work, and are now stranded. The demand is there – so why can’t public transit meet that demand?
The answer is that public transit fares only pay for a fraction (anywhere between 52% on the high end and 16% on the low end) of the service’s actual cost. The rest comes from state and local subsidies, which in turn come from things such as sales taxes – and since people aren’t buying much these days, sales tax revenue is slowing down to a trickle.
In short, what was once a fight to improve, refurbish and modernize public transit systems seems to have become a fundamental struggle to keep it alive, period. What are we to do?
For one thing, politicians are fighting hard to get as much stimulus money as possible to be dedicated to mass transit. According to Bloomberg, the current bill portions out $8.4 billion for mass transit across the nation, and New York Senator Chuck Schumer is trying to get another $6.5 billion added to that (given the size of its transit system, New York gets a fair amount of that money).
Here’s the thing, though – the money that transit authorities would receive from the stimulus bill would have to be used for infrastructure. This is important and necessary, but it means that fares will still go up, and it means that the authorities will still have to lay off many employees. Yes, we need new buses and trains, and we need to fix crumbling tracks and tunnels, but if fewer people can get to work, are we any better off?
I don’t think the stimulus money will solve the fundamental issues. Two things need to happen. First of all, transit systems need to figure out ways to reduce their costs in the long term. Maybe they should look into energy storage devices that can be charged with regenerative braking to reduce fuel consumption, or construction materials that are cheaper and last longer.
Secondly - and I know it’s unpopular – fares need to go up. Obviously, the reason that mass transit is subsidized so much is because a lot of its riders might not be able to afford riding if the fare reflected the true cost. But there are plenty of new mass transit passengers who can afford to pay more, especially in cities like New York where owning a car is a hassle, and riding the subway is the preferred option for many who could afford a car if they wanted one.
I don’t really know how transit authorities could raise fares for those who can afford it and lower fares for those who can’t. That might take some creative thinking. But what I do know what I would say to those who would protest a fare increase – would you rather pay more for transit or lose it entirely? Because that seems to be the choice we are facing.
Via NY Times, Bloomberg, WIRED
Subscribe to this comment's feed
written by Temujin Kuechle, February 04, 2009
1 dismantle (pay people to remove suburban sprawl) and plan for a more efficient high density future.
2. let nature take it s course.
yes, money invested by those living in sprawl will be lost unless the government gives long-term tax breaks to them, however jobs will be created in the removal of urban sprawl, creating higher density living planned around human needs not those of driving around an expensive car, and jobs restoring nature to where sprawl once existed. a medium sized city in Germany has taken this approach and ha great results. It is a way to invest in America now and its future, as well as our one and only planet. Just my 4 cents (Inflation you know).
-
- +0
-
-
written by john VR, February 04, 2009
The individual however is faced with a disadvantage when the means of transportation at his disposal are limited in comparison with other more resourceful individuals.
In order to counterbalance this intrinsic disadvantage, the government is given the option to A.fund the transportation companies or B. reduce the public transportation services in general.
Ultimately the price of your trainticket might be moderately high, as well as your discomfort due to the reduced service.
Finally i would like to remark the relation with the car industries interests....
The consumer must pay anyway,
but as an individual consumer let me pay for a more efficient and less polluted public space while i am moving towards my goal.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Niel McDowell, February 04, 2009
-
- -1
-
-
written by Amy, February 04, 2009
-
- +0
-
-
written by Josh Clauss, February 05, 2009
I live (and ride buses/trains) in Denver, CO, an area with *extreme* sprawl that faces many of the transit problems accounted for above. I'm fresh out of school with a low-paying, entry-level job - and on January 1st, local fares increased from $1.25 to $2.00 per ride. Two dollars may not seem like a lot to people who don't have to ride the bus, but focus more on the percentage change in price. Try to name ANYTHING else that increased in price 60% just because the calendar flipped from 2008 to 2009. It is a serious problem for the people who NEED the service, and need it to be cheap.
To me, it is a problem of marketing, something that local governments are notoriously terrible at. With proper marketing strategy that engages, cleverly addresses stereotypes of mass transit, features the economic benefits in switching from personal travel, and making the user experience as convenient as possible by utilizing scalable technologies that are already available to implement. Convincing the consumer that has a choice that public transit is safe, reliable, more affordable than alternatives, and more convenient than most imagine would produce revenues that aren't currently there.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Seriouly, February 05, 2009
I don't think the real issue has been brought to light just yet. Cutting on public transportation, education, and health is going to get us anywhere (no pun intended, seriously!)
Until we can start spending on things that makes sense! If the US is going to go further in to debt, then at least let's use that money on things that are necessary, that would actually create a huge difference in the long term.
Niel McDowell wrote: "The hundreds of millions of dollars in federal appropriations to highways needs to be partially redirected. We need to fundamentally rededicate our public money to benefit the transportation infrastructure that will serve us the best going forward, and that's not more and wider highways." BTW, Well said
-
- +0
-
-
written by Chris, February 05, 2009
But what can you do - as long as most of the general public is not interested in our public transportation systems, there will never be enough political preassure to really change things...
-
- +0
-
-
written by Anon, February 05, 2009
I often get into cost discussions with my husband, who is more cost-conscious than environment-conscious. For both of us to take the subway to downtown Chicago and back, it would cost $9. But often we can find free parking (since we're driving in off-peak) or, at worst, pay $2 to feed a meter. Driving also takes less time and involves less walking (we're not lazy -- just cold). I advocate we still take the bus, and I often win that argument, but this is a cost calculus that millions of Americans must make every day. And in cities with more suburban sprawl and hence more cheap parking, like Dallas and Atlanta, the cost differential between mass transit and driving is even greater.
Not until we make driving more expensive (like happened when gas prices soared) can we talk about raising public transit fares. Otherwise, you're advocating that the public subsidize driving more so than mass transit!
-
- +0
-
-
written by camarco, February 06, 2009
A further development is the "General Abonnement": Pay once, ride free the whole year.
If you still need a car somewhere, there's the mobility cars which you can hire at each railway station 24/7 at very low cost if you have a half price ticket or General-Abonnement.
But one reason that this works so well, is that Switzerland is very small and densly populated, so the US may have to use this principle on more local scales.
-
- +0
-
-
written by JK, February 07, 2009
-
- +0
-
-
written by Aleon, May 11, 2012
The future is not even in public transportation. PT is an archaic mode of transportation. The future is in electric cars, and other inventive ideas that are based on car models and not PT. Only those stuck in the past deny this reality.
-
- +0
-
-
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
Over the long term there are solutions to our transportation that will make conventional rail entirely obsolete. The fixed magnet maglevs have a lot of promise. Although its a new concept, its very simple, uses almost no energy and very low operating costs, has low capital costs, and most importantly, goes way faster than any other form of transportation.