When Denver’s Regional Transit District (RTD) opened its West light-rail line last April, it naturally cancelled parallel bus service. But, for many people, riding the light rail cost a lot more than the bus. This effectively made transit unaffordable for some low-income workers, who now drive to work.
Click image to download a 2.6-MB PDF of this report.
A group called 9to5, which represents working women, formally surveyed more than 500 people who live near the West light-rail line, and informally interviewed hundreds more. It found that the light rail had put a significant additional burden on low-income families. In one case, someone who was commuting to work by bus for $2.25 per trip now has to pay $4.00 per trip to take the light rail, a 78 percent increase in cost. 9to5 points out that the cost of gasoline to drive the same distance would be about $1.25.
Residents were also concerned about gentrification of their neighborhoods. (which, the report doesn’t mention, is often tax-subsidized). Others felt racially profiled: “My family cannot take the trains because the police always come to talk to us first,” said one Latino.
On one hand, the people designing rail transit are middle-class planners. They want to design a transit system that they think they and their friends would want to ride. Cost is of little concern, partly because they know someone else pays most of that cost and partly because, for them, the difference between $4.00 and $2.25 doesn’t sound that great.
On the other hand, the authors of this report seem to naively believe that government agencies have the interests of low-income families at heart. They urge cities to stop gentrification when the cities want that gentrification to boost long-term tax revenues. The authors want transit agencies to use income-based pricing for transit passes, when the agencies are desperate for revenues because they spent all available funds building expensive and obsolete rail lines. The authors want RTD to increase bus service, which RTD promised to do when it asked voters to support rail construction in 2004, but cost overruns have made it impossible for the agency to do so.
The report does point out the irony that RTD and its rail construction programs are funded by sales taxes, which are regressive. But despite their lip service about the needs of low-income people, the planners who designed Denver’s rail projects don’t care. Their goals are to build as much as fast as possible regardless of whether what they are building is useful, cost-effective, or helpful to transit-dependent families.
Far from seeking more progressive funding, RTD really wants to ask voters for another regressive sales-tax increase, but has put off doing so because voters remember about the cost overruns and other problems since they voted for the last tax increase. Even if RTD were to get that tax increase, it would all go into more super-expensive rail construction, and not for bus improvements or fare relief for low-income riders.
Many contractors are getting rich helping to build Denver rail lines. Women and minorities, the report shows, are most likely to lose. Given that rail transit is just as expensive to maintain as it is to build, there is no chance that RTD will ever be able to implement any of the recommendations in this report. The only hope will be that activists elsewhere use this report to stop rail projects in other cities.
And in other news … Swiss voters approved the so-called “FABI” initiative on Sunday, with 62% voting “yes.” It was approved by a majority of the voters in all cantons except for one.
“Two central points of the plan are the creation of a new fund and a strategic infrastructure programme. The open-ended fund is expected to finance the use, maintenance and expansion of the existing network.”
http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/swiss_news/Swiss_railways_could_benefit_from_fresh_cash_boost.html?cid=37579820
Monies for the $7.2 billion fund established by the initiative will come from a variety of sources, but especially, and most controversially, from a 0.1% increase in the VAT, and a reduction in the vehicle use deduction on personal income taxes (which amounts, of course, to a tax increase for some people).
This was one of three federal initiatives, and was heavily debated. The “FABI Nein” campaign was underwritten by the right-wing parties (especially the far right-wing, xenophobic SVP) who employed arguments commonly used by the AP and his supporters. (Their billboards showed golden railroads adorned with diamond spikes.) The “FABI Ja” campaign was supported by the left-wing parties and was more low key. (The SVP has a lot more money for campaigning, primarily from a couple of wealthy industrialists.)
I’m not surprised it passed, but thought the result would be closer.
The first segment of the light rail opened when I was in High School in Denver. At that time a monthly bus pass was accepted fare on the light rail. I suppose things have changed? Can you no longer use monthly passes for the train?
You gotta love the too appropriate title of the report “LEFT at the Station”. Snicker snicker. Only those people have so perverted the meaning of “civil rights” and “justice” to now mean that certain people have special human rights to to never pay more for anything and that all government actions must benefit them. George Orwell would be proud.
Now if you take away the over-the-top “civil rights” and “justice” claims, they still have good arguments under normal public policy analysis. Spending billions of dollars to “improve” transportation only to wipe out existing service that people have built their job/home decisions around is a major detriment. Especially when it will bleed off funding and increase the operating deficit from existing services.
As I have said before, the reduction in bus service when light rail is built is one of the Antiplanner’s strongest arguments.
By taking away the means for low-income people to get to work, our progressive elites are actually doing them a favor – “they are freeing them of the need to work.”
Sounds crazy? Of course it is.
But that is the latest claim of the White House and Obamacare supporters – so it seems to fit right in with the elites who take away low-cost transit (buses) from the people who need them the most.
Can you no longer use monthly passes for the train?
Still available.
DS
“Still available.”
Assuming that the people that use the bus/light rail daily (or more than once or twice a week) have a monthly pass, because it is way more cost effective, the actual cost of the transit trip hasn’t increased at all. It also got me thinking, Lakewood and Golden don’t exactly have a super high density of people displaying transit dependency characteristics. I mean West Colfax aint East Colfax.
I hate to see transit systems cannibalize their bus service for light rail but something smells fishy here.
Most often I see monthly passes when fare cops come around.
As far as bus service, I’ve been waiting for some buses to be reinstated. Not sure what the delay is.
DS
This was one of three federal initiatives, and was heavily debated. The “FABI Nein” campaign was underwritten by the right-wing parties (especially the far right-wing, xenophobic SVP) who employed arguments commonly used by the AP and his supporters. (Their billboards showed golden railroads adorned with diamond spikes.)
Would it have been racist to insist that the railway fund its “strategic” program from its own revenue streams?
The last thing Denver or any other US metro area needs is another sales tax or car user tax-funded slush fund to fuel more rail spending.
The authors want transit agencies to use income-based pricing for transit passes, when the agencies are desperate for revenues because they spent all available funds building expensive and obsolete rail lines.
I don’t understand why this practice isn’t more common. Technically, it can’t be that difficult to set up a fare class for low-income users. Then, just raise fares on non-poor users to make up the difference. Price discrimination at its finest.
On second thought, I do know why this practice isn’t more common, but it has nothing to do with the merits of the idea itself.
On second thought, I do know why this practice isn’t more common, but it has nothing to do with the merits of the idea itself.
We just recently got machines that take ATM cards for walk-up fares (not a typo). Don’t be so sure of your reasons.
DS
Bennet, you’re observations are correct about Lakewood and Golden. And they point out a key problem with these sort of schemes, they’re not designed in a way that makes the most transportation sense but the most political sense. They had to have rail lines this to get as many JeffCo voters voting for Fastraks as possible.