In both the literal and figurative sense, cars aren’t getting us where we need to be. Fickle gas prices, and an even more fickle economy, are leaving many Americans struggling to pay for their automobiles. And then there’s the whole matter of the environmental dead end of oil dependence that’s lurking in the background (and swimming in the Gulf).
The longterm answer to this problem is still up for debate — it may involve alternative fuel services, or a movement into cities, or any combination of technologies and cultural shifts. But right now, in 2010, the answer for many people is public transportation. Americans took nearly 10.7 billion trips on public transit in 2008 — a 4% increase over 2007 and the highest level since 1956. Public transportation use has increased 38% since 1995, an increase that’s nearly triple the growth rate of the U.S. population.
And yet at the same time, it’s getting hammered. In urban centers all over the country, public transportation systems are being forced to lay off workers, cut services, and increase fares. For a complete map of service cuts around the country, click here. [SButtonZ button="digg"]
Luckily, policymakers are stepping in to do something about it. Today, New York Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer gave a press conference to garner support for the Public Transportation Preservation Act of 2010. Schumer, who is co-sponsoring the bill along with seven other senators, is urging the quick passage of the act, which would create a $2 billion emergency fund to save public transit jobs, routes, current fares, and more. The money would be available to states through September 30, 2011.
The bill is already gaining praise, with the American Public Transportation Association coming out in strong favor of it and local blogs urging support. Whether or not you’re a consumer of public transportation, it’s hard to argue that this wouldn’t be money well spent.
Tags: Politics, Save Public Transport
Cue press release opposing this bill from the RNC in 3…2…1…bravo to Senator Schumer for introducting some real legislation which will create jobs and actually benefit middle and lower-class people. I eagerly await Benn Gleck’s tirade against this “Socialism being rammed down our throats!”
“Whether or not you’re a consumer of public transportation, it’s hard to argue that this wouldn’t be money well spent. ”
Let me try. The federal government is running deficits measured in trillions. It doesn’t have any dollars to allocate. To get them it must borrow them from China and other overseas creditors. So, this plan would issue more debt, i.e., borrow money from overseas, in order to reduce fare increases. That is a ruinous idea. Assuming there is any intention to pay this money back, where does it come from? Will future fare increases be intended to repay the borrowing and attendant interest? Or will the money to repay China come from some other source?
Also, the need for the additional subsidy seems suspect. The entire piece talks about how people are supposedly flocking to transit. Shouldn’t all these new paying riders be a source of revenue rather than a cause for subsidy? I’ve never heard of a business that requires additional donations because it has double digit increases in customers. Something doesn’t add up here.
Eric,
The idea is that if unemployment returns to an acceptable level rather than the atrocious 10% we have today, which will happen sooner if we don’t have to lay off all our bus drivers and subway conductors, the increase in tax revenue due to the increase in employed citizens would be used to repay the temporary debt burden.
And public transit nearly everywhere in the world these days is a public service, not a business – fares almost never cover the full costs and additional funds must be brought in to make up the shortfall. This is a policy choice based on an assessment of the economic benefits of good public transit systems, which you may disagree with, but that’s why an increase in ridership during a while the economy is depressed requires additional spending on top of what’s brought in from fares.
If the increases in transit ridership are concentrated at rush hour, then the operator has to add additional capacity, which is expensive. Conversely, if the increases are off-peak or reverse-peak, then they’re essentially free money for the operator.
As for the deficit: if the US brings costs down to European levels, then I personally can’t conceive of a rail expansion program costing even $75 billion a year, which is what all governments in the US combined spend on subsidizing roads right now. In Greater New York, this and this would be about $40 billion together. Divide by 20 years and multiply by the US population, it’s $27 billion a year. By the standards of how much the US wastes on being able to destroy the Soviet Union ten times over, it’s nothing.
$2 billion! Why its an outrage, I tell you!
I can’t wait for Jon Kyl to turn from his unfunded, $20 billion per year cut of the estate tax which helps 1/2 of one percent of the population, to unctiously pontificate on “budget busting” proposals like this.
The video is dated. Suburban St. Louis passed a 1/2 cent sales tax in April, 2010 that will restore service and allow the construction future rail and BRT lines.
Let me try. The federal government is running deficits measured in trillions. It doesn’t have any dollars to allocate. To get them it must borrow them from China and other overseas creditors. So, this plan would issue more debt, i.e., borrow money from overseas, in order to reduce fare increases. That is a ruinous idea. Assuming there is any intention to pay this money back, where does it come from? Will future fare increases be intended to repay the borrowing and attendant interest? Or will the money to repay China come from some other source
It all depends on your ROI. The federal government is essentially borrowing at no cost, after inflation. Borrowing to fund current consumption is a problem at any interest rate. Borrowing in order to purchase income-enchancing infrastructure, however, will leave future generations richer by enough to pay off the loans.
“Also, the need for the additional subsidy seems suspect. The entire piece talks about how people are supposedly flocking to transit. Shouldn’t all these new paying riders be a source of revenue rather than a cause for subsidy? I’ve never heard of a business that requires additional donations because it has double digit increases in customers. Something doesn’t add up here.”
What doesn’t add up is your equating public transport with a “business”. It isn’t, and shouldn’t be a for-profit business. Like the article says, this is money well spent, unlike many other things our government is borrowing money to finance.