A new poll finds that three out of four Americans never or almost never ride transit. Just 6 percent use it daily; 7 percent once a week; 4 percent two or three times a month; and 7 percent once every few months.
The numbers seem a little high, as the 2010 census found that less than 5 percent of workers ride transit to work. Moreover, other data show that people who say they ride transit often drive instead, while people who say they drive almost always drive, so the census numbers overestimate transit commuting.
In any case, the poll goes on to say that Americans “still tend to believe the government should back mass transit projects as long as they don’t lose money.” But all transit loses money? How did the pollsters reach this conclusion?
A feeling of fullness buy discount cialis after having only a few bites of food. These midwayfire.com viagra samples incorporate diminished vitality and inspiration, loss of delight in interests, social withdrawal, considerations of death or suicide, emotions of powerlessness, blame and uselessness, touchiness, sleep deprivation, loss of longing and industrious vacancy. But, Lawax and Vital M-40 capsules are the effective of all the products found in the midwayfire.com cialis generico uk online market. Although there are several treatment options available for those cialis without prescription diagnosed with type-two diabetes. One of the questions the pollsters asked was, “Should the federal government do more to encourage use of mass transit services in the United States, including funding more public transportation projects?” Apparently, most people answered “Yes.” But the next question was, “Should the government continue to fund mass transit services even if they lose money?” Apparently, most people answered “No.”
I’m not a subscriber to Rasmussen Reports, so I don’t have the exact percentages of answers to each question. But it is clear that critics of massive federal transit grants need to do more to educate people about the fact that all of these projects lose money. Otherwise, too many people will tend to support them even though they themselves rarely if ever use them.
There are plenty of reasons to oppose expensive transit projects other than that they lose money. Light rail, streetcars, and many commuter rail lines increase congestion. Counting the energy cost of construction, most rail transit uses more energy than the cars they take off the road. And, as historians Larry Schweikart and Burton Folsom point out, private entities have always done a better job at building transportation infrastructure than the federal government.
But many of these notions go over the heads of most people who are just trying to get to and from work and other destinations. Making people more aware of the huge losses incurred by transit operations should go far to increase their skepticism of federal transit boondoggles.
There is only one true poll. The rest are frauds.
The one true poll is conducted when people actually pay for things. The dollars they spend are votes and the number of dollars they spend measures the intensity of their real desires with perfect accuracy.
Meanwhile, over at Slate Matt Yglesias has an interesting read on the benefits of BRT.
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/transportation/2013/08/bus_rapid_transit_improved_buses_are_the_best_route_to_better_transit.html
This is why I am always skeptical of these types of polls, regardless of whether they are conducted by Rasmussen or the American Public Transportation Association. There are always these kinds of conflicting results. Of course, there are always explanations.
There is only one true poll. The rest are frauds.
The one true poll is conducted when people actually pay for things. The dollars they spend are votes and the number of dollars they spend measures the intensity of their real desires with perfect accuracy.
Exactly!
Remember that most planners are sociopaths. They don’t care if the entire USA becomes nothing but a bunch of Detroits, as long as their mixed use/pump up downtown/build light rail empire fantasies proceed on schedule. All planners care about is having a Pearl District and a government sector in downtown, and a bunch of streetcars/light rail connecting all this crap; everything else can go to hell.
I think most people support transit in large part because they think it reduces congestion and thus feel it benefits them when they are stuck in traffic. They see it much like the HOV lanes. The Antiplanner should emphasize his arguments about this more.
Beyond that, I think most people support transit as a service to poor and disabled people, and as an alternative way to get around for kids, disabled, and people whose car is in the shop.
Among people who don’t pay attention to public financing at all(i.e. most people), I think most people think the federal government pays for all the construction and that fares pay for the operating costs. They may know there is some subsidy if it was on the ballot as a sales tax, but most people have no clue what a bond election with federal subsidies mean for them.
A couple of thoughts. Part of the problem with many in the “government is too big,” crowd is that it’s a nice sound bite, but when asked should we cut spending in military, social security, medicaid, transportation, etc. the answer is often “no!” Not that this is the case amongst my opponents on this blog but it is a phenomena well documented by political satirist, journalist and documentarians. It’s also part of the reason why the wheels are spinning off of the republican train right now.
Second, I agree that we should be honest that public transit does not pay for itself. Of course it doesn’t. If it did there would be no reason for tax payers to subsidize the service.
“Should the government continue to fund mass transit services even if they lose money?”
That is a peculiar question, though, isn’t it? Would a pollster ask “should we continue to fund fire protection services even if they lose money”? There once were private fire companies, after all. Or “should we continue to provide food stamps even if they lose money”? The only reason the question makes any sense at all is that the government actually charges for use of the transit system, thus setting up an income stream against which an operating loss can be measured. Fire protection and food stamps, on the other hand, are not paid for on a per-use basis, so asking whether they “lose money” is nonsensical.
Think of all the other policy questions that this particular question obscures: To you, what is the primary purpose of transit — profit-making or providing mobility (especially to the old, disabled and car-less)? If the former, should transit be privatized, or should the city raise fares and consolidate service? If the latter, should there be a charge for its use, or should it be free, like other government benefits? If there is a charge, how should it be determined? And what levels of funding and service are acceptable? The answers to the “losing money” question hint at what the respondents might say in response to these questions, but otherwise can’t tell us much.
Sandy,
I have to disagree. If you’re talking about bubbas and gang bangers who are totally disengaged from all aspects of civic life, then maybe, but I think most people understand what happens after a bond passes. They may not have a sophisticated understanding of the day to day operations at a school district, transit agency or parks department, but they know that by voting for a bond they are voting to increasing their taxes to pay for what they perceive as a public good.
Despite all the clamoring about polls and market choices, this is where the battle is won or lost. If you really want to make an impact and get people on your side, get out of the bloggosphere echo-chamber and start campaigning against bonds. If a bond passes it doesn’t meant that the libertarians were wrong, it means that the libertarians sucked at getting their message across to voters.
Or maybe, and I’m just throwing this out there, the anti-(planner, bond, government) argument is inferior.
“Remember that most planners are sociopaths. They don’t care if the entire USA becomes nothing but a bunch of Detroits, as long as their mixed use/pump up downtown/build light rail empire fantasies proceed on schedule. All planners care about is having a Pearl District and a government sector in downtown, and a bunch of streetcars/light rail connecting all this crap; everything else can go to hell.”
Please feel free to provide any evidence supporting these assertions.
Fire protection and food stamps, on the other hand, are not paid for on a per-use basis, so asking whether they “lose money” is nonsensical.
Both of these examples are public goods (well, to the extent that income redistribution can be considered a public good). Thus, a head tax (equal charge per capita) is an acceptable means of financing them. You cannot recover the “demand curve” for fire protection services. The same cannot be said for public transit services, which have both of the characteristics of a private good (excludability, rivalry).
Think of all the other policy questions that this particular question obscures: To you, what is the primary purpose of transit — profit-making or providing mobility (especially to the old, disabled and car-less)? If the former, should transit be privatized, or should the city raise fares and consolidate service?
Profit-making and mobility are not mutually exclusive, as the existence of many private forms of transportation attest to. Most people derive little or no benefit from the provision of transit services, yet continue to pay rents to the transit providers in the form of dedicated taxes. Worse yet, many of them do not have a choice, since improvements to road networks in many urban areas (and even some states) are made conditional on approval of increased transit subsidies.
To the extent that subsidies are provided, they should be targeted to consumers, not producers. And recipients of these subsidies need to be more carefully identified.
“There once were private fire companies, after all. ”
There still are private fire companies.
“Fire protection…are not paid for on a per-use basis.”
Not true. Watch the video. Not only can people pay for fire protection on a “per-use basis,” non-profit firefighting companies like the one detailed in the video are more efficient than government firefighting agencies.
Why do most commenters here talk out of their asses? Not a single link on this thread backing the empty, pontificating assertions.
Government “benefits” aren’t “free”; someone pays, and usually when government is involved, they pay more than if those goods and services were delivered through competing firms on the market.
Please feel free to provide any evidence supporting these assertions.
Bennett, I don’t get why you think I have it out for you. Just because I think a lot of planners are basically assholes, doesn’t mean I think you are. I think you’re probably a great guy and a great planner who does his job well. Hell, I agree with you a lot. It is thugs like Dan and msetty who I dislike, and I don’t understand why you defend them, or at the very least, stand by silently why they rant and rave like lunatics. Thugs like Dan and his ilk give all planners a black eye.
And as for the tyranny of bad planning, please see exhibit A, where we can see the de facto war on automobiles planned by Portland area planners and endorsed by government officials there:
http://www.debunkingportland.com/printables/Disincentives%20to%20the%20Automobile.pdf
Great points, MJ, but simply because a public service has the characteristics of a private good does not mean that the state or city cannot elect to treat it as a public good (regardless of whether that is a good idea). One that comes to mind is parking: in my town, the city provides it for free along neighborhood streets, even though it is excludable (by enforcement) and highly rivalrous. It also provides access to and use of the library for free, although this is excludable and somewhat rivalrous. Some cities have in fact chosen to make public transit free (Hasselt, in Belgium, or Portland’s Fareless Square — since discontinued, but other cities have continued these policies). This is a valid policy choice.
And no, profit-making and profitability are not mutually exclusive — my point was only that profit-making and providing transit as a public good (especially to disadvantaged populations) may be impossible, as is the case with other government services for disadvantaged persons. From that perspective, transit is to mobility as Section 8 is to housing as SNAP is to food, the difference being that all people can use transit, whereas only those with qualifying incomes can use Section 8 or SNAP. Arguably that is possible because transit is actually less rivalrous than Section 8 or SNAP, which are on fixed budgets, whereas transit is usually under-capacity in most American cities.
bennet –
I may or may not be right about the general public. I am not talking about “bubbas”, I am talking about most people who don’t read the local paper (90%) and maybe occasionally watch the local news in which a blonde babe recites 30 seconds about a bond election. And they say that the bond will be 80% matched by state or federal dollars, and it will create blah blah local jobs.
I half pay attention to local bond elections and I have very little understanding what they mean in the end. I end up having to vote half the time on the basis of whether more people on my street have a “Yes on 4” sign on their lawn than have “No on 4” signs.
Metrosucks,
You don’t get it. I understand that you respect what I have to say and don’t think I’m an “asshole.” What you are failing to recognize is that the feeling is not mutual. This thread is a good example of why. I asked for evidence of your assertions, not for evidence of bad planning. I understand that bad planning exists. What I didn’t realize was that “…most planners are sociopaths. They don’t care if the entire USA becomes nothing but a bunch of Detroits…”
By and large, your comments on this blog are utterly worthless. All you do is make snide insults to your imaginary opponents. You stir the pot and poke the bear, but you lack the rhetorical flourish to make it enjoyable. If all you can contribute is the occasional insult, hurled from behind your screen name, the least you could do is make it funny or interesting or sumthin’.
Step yo game up!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2nOLGNjWnk
You forgot another argument against transit: gentrification and displacement.
I agree with Delbert. While there are plenty of examples (maybe even the majority of examples) of ill-planned transit initiatives, when it does work its positive repercussions can exist in more forms than ticket sales. Transit is (or at least can be) a municipal service, not just a development amenity. Whether the net benefit includes increased mobility to a broader number of people, or higher property values, or bolsters tourism, I don’t think you can peg the usefulness of transit only on whether or not it operates in the black.
I’d also throw out the possibility that the people who support the idea of transit are doing so because of the places that they’ve been where it does work and think that, as a result, it can work everywhere. Someone that goes on vacation to London, or Paris, or Tokyo, or New York could come back and say, “Sure transit is good, we should make more of that happen.” The catch is that I’m not sure they all are aware of or on board with all of the other things that have to happen to build a more effective and efficient system of which density would probably be the most important.