“Equity is a complex issue” and “there is a decided lack of agreement regarding” the meaning of equity, says a recent paper by Joshua Schank of the left-of-center Mineta Transportation Institute. This “leaves substantial vulnerabilities for the idea of equity to be hijacked for political purposes.”
Click image to download a copy of this paper.
As an example, Schank notes that Los Angeles voters approved funding for a bus-rapid transit line in the Vermont Avenue corridor, “one of the busiest transit corridors in the U.S.” But the LA Metro board held up the project based on the argument that it might be more “equitable” to build a subway in the corridor. Since subways take years to build, this “represents a very narrow view of equity that in practice postpones improvements for those who need them the most,” says Schank, adding that “the Board effectively delayed better transit service for the people in the corridor.”
In another example, LA Metro (which, like some other California transit agencies, is responsible for both transit and congestion reduction, which is a conflict of interest) was seriously considering the idea of congestion pricing. The agency’s board, however, fretted over whether this would be inequitable for low-income commuters. Nevermind the fact, says Schank, that congestion pricing increases equity in many ways; the board was stuck on this small potential inequity (which the Antiplanner doesn’t even think is an inequity).
Schank himself supports some policies that are questionable on equity grounds. He believes that the revenues from congestion pricing should be used to subsidize transit. To him, this is equitable because it is the wealthy auto drivers subsidizing low-income transit riders.
But the 2019 American Community Survey found that less than 10 percent of Los Angeles County workers who earned less than $25,000 a year rode transit to work, while 76 percent drove alone or carpooled. It would be more equitable to use the revenues from auto users to improve traffic conditions for all highway users, not just transit riders.
Equity is a complex issue, and transit advocates who presume that all subsidies to transit are somehow equitable are simply shills for one of the most inefficient and inequitable sectors of our economy. Equity can be best increased by reducing or eliminating all subsidies, thus ensuring that everyone gets what they pay for and isn’t subsidizing someone who probably who doesn’t need or deserve the subsidy.
“Equity is a complex issue”
No it’s not, it’s just made complex….
Defined: it’s the quality of being fair and impartial.
public transportation, public transit, mass transit, or simply transit; the words may differ but they are in fact different things.
To be “Equitable” Transit has to become an all encompassing; believing the government HAS to provide transportation services for people who don’t own cars. This mindset, while noble…. attracted some very corrupt individuals to pilfer taxpayers and enlist government spending regimes to build stuff we largely don’t use….
And why do you need to afford heavily subsidized transportation systems to move downtowners; for people whose average income exceeds $75,000 a year, the last people on Earth who need subsidized transportation, but said are largely bared by use of taxes namely imposed on lower income people.
Transit’s relevance to urban economies is questionable. In BIG cities it’s necessary, in moderate sized cities they’re useful, in small cities and towns they’re minute.
– Despite generous subsidies city departments have let their transit infrastructure fall apart and corrode. Rather than spend bailout and COVID relief packages on upkeep and repair they used the money to run empty trains and buses with no service cuts.
-Transit agencies across the nation have extremely problematic labor corruption issues, everything from excessive overtime to outright fraud.
-They reward cronyism disguised as overtime and when they get caught, it’s a matter of “See no Evil, Hear no Evil, Speak no Evil”
-Transit’s Share of Travel in major urban areas since 1970 has declined 2/3. In most urban areas subsidies began by around 1970 give or take. More subsidies wont fix that; because what subsidies do is reward Transit agencies regardless of worker productivity
-Subsidies destroy worker productivity. In the private sector, administrative, secretarial and bureaucratic manpower has thinned thanks to improvements in telecommunication and IT,data management, even in Heavy industries; in other words fewer paper pushers. since 1970’s Transit agencies have EXPANDED workforces even as actual customer base declines.
-Failure in logic here is that these small and moderate size cities want transportation infrastructure on par with their big city cousins. They don’t HAVE THE POPULATION and thus the tax base to afford billion dollar projects. So they expand their “vision” to the suburban outskirts. Towns and small cities do not need heavy rail or dedicated bus lanes. Contrary to popular belief, neither population or population densities dictate transit success, JOB CONCENTRATIONS do. Some cities like South American and Asian Megacities with 10 million plus people; Transit use makes sense, only in context of urban designs there’s no way you can move ten million people or even 1 million workers and commuters on a road system.
NYC is the largest job concentration in Downtown with 2 million jobs, 2nd Chicago with less than 1/3 that and in 3rd place is DC with barely a quarter.
-Transportation demographics are not well factored; the government has spent billions on the belief that people without automobiles are in need actual transporation or as the government calls it; Job Accessibility for Households Without Vehicles. Assuming people need transportation…. Half of All US households without cars also have no employed workers in the households. Even where they are, not needed to asssume they need “Cars” when alternative transportation and small scale such as mopeds, scooters, bikes, motorcycles and odd/exotic motorized vehicles and other forms of transportation not bound by legal rules of license; hence aren’t factored in government data.