Danny Westneat, a columnist for the Seattle Times, openly wonders why Seattle is building so much light rail when we seem to be entering “an era of ‘untransit.'” He quotes a Stanford law review article saying that Zoom is “the modern equivalent of the streetcar — a technological advance that will profoundly alter land use.”
Puget Sound Transit is spending tens of billions of dollars building high-cost, low-capacity transit lines that make even less sense after COVID than they did before, yet there is no indication that Sound Transit is changing is plans in response to the pandemic. Photo by brewbooks.
Instead of altering their plans, however, transit agencies and transit advocates are busy trying to figure out how to justify increased subsidies for decreased ridership. Many of them are hoping that “equity” can be the issue that tips the balance in favor of more subsidies.
A group called Elevated Chicago thinks that equity demands more transit subsidies and more subsidies to high-density development near transit stations. I wonder what that group thinks about the fact that more than 70 Chicago Transit Authority workers made more than $200,000 last year, and one made more than $300,000. How equitable is that?
Meanwhile, Streetlight has published a report on how to ensure equity in transportation. At first glance, the report is about all kinds of transportation, but the only examples given are public transit.
Get this straight: transit is the most inequitable form of transportation we have because most of the taxes used to subsidize it are regressive and less than 5 percent of low-income workers rely on transit to get to work. That means 95 percent of low-income workers are disproportionately paying for transit rides they aren’t taking.
Telling low-income people to rely on transit while high-income people drive cars is also inequitable because cars are so much more efficient, costing less and getting people to destinations much faster. The real issue transportation equity is that about 7 million low-income households lack access to an automobile. Those who sincerely care about equity should devote less effort to transit and more towards getting more low-income people into cars.
If the $64 billion spent subsidizing transit in 2020 were spent on helping low-income people buy cars, it would have been enough to give every carless low-income family more than $9,000 towards a car. I don’t advocate that, but for a lot less money we could give people low-interest loans to buy a car, thus giving them access to the same economic opportunities that everyone else has.
Let’s ask the people. Would you rather live in multifamily housing near a subway station or a single-family house with a garage and automobile?
Would you rather get into a car in your garage and drive to work or walk to a bus/train/subway stop; ride to a station near your job and then walk the rest of the way?
Some will prefer one, some the other and we have this thing called a “market” that should decide. It should not be decided by bureaucrats in Washington or City Hall.
The proven long-term answer has been delivered by the decades-long migration of real people away from dense multi-family housing served by public transit to single-family homes with a car (or two) in the garage.
This small city ditched its buses. Its public Uber-like service has been a big hit
https://www.npr.org/2022/07/19/1111765630/on-demand-shuttles-have-replaced-buses-in-a-small-north-carolina-town?utm_campaign=npr&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_term=nprnews&fbclid=IwAR23KfkGjeWjvHzsn3PeyuShIzpZVEBm8_6tob5wx3P1K__M5RdpTHHvYk8
Just looking at the pictures of the rail construction it certainly seems as though this is just to funnel money to construction firms. The light rail systems built over 100 years ago didn’t need such elaborate and expensive construction. The same for California high speed rail, and most new passenger rail projects.
The neighorhood that city’s like to label “downtown” have been fading hard for generations relative to the rest of the region in importance.
There’s still a value for centralized locations. They just aren’t places where you’ll have 60,000 people each day commuting in and out of. Let office workers work remotely and 2 hours of ago spent commuting can now be spent getting things done.
Spain and Germany taking major
steps backwards. Doesn’t make sense – are they not reading the Antiplanner on a daily basis like we do?
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-07-15/spain-will-introduce-free-train-travel-to-help-ease-the-cost-of-living
https://www.schengenvisainfo.com/news/rail-travel-in-germany-increases-by-42-following-introduction-of-e9-train-tickets/
”
The proven long-term answer has been delivered by the decades-long migration of real people away from dense multi-family housing served by public transit to single-family homes with a car (or two) in the garage.
”
I think there’s something to the missing middle that play s role. Kinda like a Toyota Yaris or an 2006 Nissan Altima.
But not even the missing revolves around the SFH. It’s about a carriage house, a lil’ shed in the back becoming a tiny home, about a SFH being turned into a duplex or triplex .
Lazy reader makes a good observation. I live in a small city and there is little justification for regular bus service. The city/county government created a ride hailing service to give rides to those who need them and most people are very satisfied with it. At the same time there are people here, a city of approximately 30K who are arguing there needs to be commuter rail between the city and a nearby town of 4k people. Also, per the equity argument. I think you can only judge what is equitable by looking holistically at an entire situation. Claiming that spending billions on a transit system that has only limited reach while there is massive homelessness and declining real economic output it absurd. Also, the environmental and resource impact of induced traffic jams etc have to be factored in as well.
Transit equity is impossible. Transit economics is population dynamics….a Hicktown of 4000 doesn’t need transit. A town/city of 40,000 may need some transportation which can be dealt with via jitneys and small buses.
City of 400,000 needs transit … applicable by bus routes if the city is traditionally designed plan. If it’s a sprawl plan…. it’s largely useless….
A city if 4 million… transit isn’t just a necessity. But crucial
“Paris just announced plans to ban private cars in the city centre.
Don’t let anyone tell you it can’t be done. Congestion is not inevitable, pollution is not inevitable, climate chaos is not inevitable.”
https://twitter.com/MikeHudema/status/1551349559120502785?s=20
Reason #2371 no one is riding transit
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6_QXyNyyJY
Transit subsidies are woahfully inadequate….because once richer people hop on the bandwagon…..subsidizing richer people becomes the goal. Attracting high income people means building transit in high income areas If Rail is chosen, at significant expense, it must be built in high income neighborhoods….which again overlooks the individuals who actually needed transit.
Subsidize the poor directly for transit as the Antiplanner suggests, bears merit, but minutiae laws are slippery slopes. Once exceptions are allowed, the goalposts move, the rules get complicated, and the idea dropped. Subsidizing people below the poverty level, once subsidies emerges for basically free transportation, they lose all incentive to sustain transportation options beyond what they’re given. Of course the solution to this is stipulations for job requirements, met, hours etc. Which again…Goalposts.
In government goal posts rarely advance.
I got nothing… my main goal really is de-federal-ization of transit. If states want to subsidize transportation services…without a backup plan when fiscal cliffs are reached…fine. projects like Boston Big dig would not have happened or…..would have taken different course. Like be CHEAPER
“As US Road Deaths Rise, France Is Safer Than Ever. Why?”
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-06-16/why-france-offers-lessons-for-road-safety-in-the-us
From your linked Bloomberg article:
That’s just silly. France is eight times smaller than United States. France is roughly the same size as Texas. In fact Texas is actually slightly larger than France. People have to travel far further to get where they’re going in the United States than in France. Building collective transportation systems for the majority of Americans would be insanely expensive because we’re so spread out in this great big country of ours.
What should most matter to the Bloomberg author when comparing traffic safety across countries is the extent to which road traffic accidents are contributing to people’s deaths, which is traffic deaths per vehicle kilometers traveled (VKMT). In that respect France and the United States are fairly similar:
Deaths per VKMT
Mexico 28
Malaysia 16
South Korea 14
Czech Republic 12
Belgium 7
Hong Kong 7
United States 7
New Zealand 7
Slovenia 7
Japan 6
Israel 6
France 6
Australia 5
Austria 5
Canada 5
Finland 5
you can curb auto fatalities effortlessly with these simple low cost means.
– Build speed cameras into the road bed or disguised as inanimate road objects like cones or in trees. Most people avoid speed traps as they know where they are mostly at signs and signals. They drive like Ms daisy on the intersections but zoom off before or after. Lot of people will complain…but they’d have no excuse when confronted with evidence going 45 in a 30.
– use the point system to find the worst drivers and suspend their license for 3 months. since driving is a privilege, not a right…..some might complain but you have no right to pose safety hazard. eliminating worst drivers.
Drivers licenses have near decade if issuance before expiration. DMV can vastly lower the price of license acquisition but increase frequency requiring more frequent testing. Driving is as much a reading and knowledge exercise as a instintuctial one. More frequent testing is also a cognitive exercise test.
– 1/3 of all traffic-related deaths are alcohol related… if bars aren’t held more responsible loss of liquor license is valid. Bars start confiscating or holding keys of patrons and no return. First time DUI sustained by 6 months license suspension. 2nd infarction is 6-12 months in prison and license suspension ; vehicular homicide if a person dies.