"Should Public Transit Be Free? More Cities Say, Why Not?" by Ellen Barry, NYT
"Why Kansas City's Free Transit Experiment Matters", by Laura Bliss, CityLab
For some people who drive G Wagons to school, transportation is quite literally a luxury. But most people who work or go to school require some form of automobile transportation, which makes me think that transportation is a basic need, and public transit is a type of public goods. Some public goods are free to use, like highways and air, but some we pay for, like bridges and water. So should we have to pay for public transportation?
According to the article, supporters of free public transport claim it will help combat social and racial inequality. Furthermore, waiving public transit fees will likely lead to more people using public transit over private automobiles, which reduces carbon emissions.
Now comes the million dollar question: if consumers don't pay for public transit, who will? The city featured in the NYT article, Lawrence, MA, makes roughly $225,000 from bus fares-- a relatively small amount the mayor said he could make up for with the city's surplus cash reserves. Another option could include funding public transportation with philanthropy.
I think free public transportation is a good idea, but what are its limitations? If this idea gained momentum, would it leave the poorer cities behind? The program in Lawrence is a 2 year pilot, and Kansas City's free transit is described as an "experiment"-- do you think these trial runs are going to succeed and permanently waive public transit fees? Share your thoughts!
8 comments:
I believe making public transportation is a right step towards the future as it would save money for those who commute everyday to work. Moreover, cars impose a lot of costs that many people in society cannot afford, and also can aid towards cities becoming more environmentally friendly. However, this would force cities to make more buses which would create even more traffic in the city. Generally, I believe making public transportation free would probably benefit society, but in the long run, commuting in the city will just become unfeasible, and not possible.
I think public transportation is a good idea. It will promote the idea of carpooling more and people will save money. It will also save emissions from cars to help save the planet. I used to take the SamTrans bus to and from school before I had my license and needed to go out of my way to buy bus tokens on a weekly basis. Over time, buying bus tokens added up and I felt that it was unnecessary. Yes, it is similar to paying for my own gas but paying for public transportation seemed pointless. People will raise the question that if public transportation is free, how will it be funded? But I think with all the taxes people have to pay, those tax dollars could be used to help fund public transportation. Bart and CalTrain should be free too, it would be more convenient. It's unfortunate that Bart raised their rates starting this year.
The only limitation I could see with public transportation is that it can’t get you directly to the place you want to go (especially in a car-centric society where many things are off highways or distanced far apart). The lack of walkability in the United States compared to places like Europe also hinders the expansion of public transportation. Aside from obvious federal restrictions, I’m sure many local influencers are trying to stop the expansion or even the introduction of public transportation. What are the implications of public transportation on the oil and car industry? Obviously not good. I could most definitely see Koch or private industry funded politicians lobbying against this expansion. In the same vein, if we do nothing, then America’s crumbling public infrastructure is all but finished with an inherent “death spiral” in our midst (less people on public transport >> higher fares and worse service >>> less people on public transportation >> …). Hopefully this endeavor succeeds as I would like the US to evolve above the current public transportation crisis.
By utilizing public transportation it reduces the number of vehicles, amount of emissions (especially in a highly populated area), and can help cities reduce smog which would effectively decreases the heath risks many people may experience due to poor air quality. If we make public transportation free then it will hopefully encourage more people to utilize public transportation, especially if it is more convenient for them. Also, if there is no fare required then people would be able to board quicker. However, there are some concerns on how we would pay for this, especially for cities that wouldn't be able to fund for this? Additionally, there's the fact that there would be crowds of people that would swamp the public transportation since it's free and if there are not enough vehicles to accommodate for this there will be slower service overall. As a person who does take public transportation to school everyday and back, and sometimes over the weekend as well I could definitely see the benefits of free public transportation, but I also wouldn't mind paying the $27 for an unlimited pass to use Samtrans for a month especially with how frequently I use the bus. Nonetheless, while the idea of free public transportation sounds great, how doable is it and who would pay for it? Hopefully, we'll be able to figure this out so this can be an equitable process for everyone and help financially
The idea is good, but the payment is the million dollar question, I agree. I don't think you could rely on philanthropy. The idea that your putting this great idea into effect with hope that someone rich will be generous enough to pay for the operation is outrageous. The rich are most likely not using the public transportation, making it an extreme courtesy to pay for something like that. Then again, anyone using the bus for free probably cant help pay for it either. Relying on philanthropy is not a great idea. I think buying a month or a year worth of bus drives is the best option, cause usually you would get the best deals. That is, if they couldn't find a good way to pay for free public transportation.
I use public transportation quite frequently (because I don't have my licEnSe please make fun of me), and I think it is incredibly important to many people's lives. There are plenty of people who don't have a car, a license, or any access really to transportation. It's not always the most efficient mode of transportation because it takes time what with the stops, etc. but many people have no other choice. I think that public transportation should be encouraged more than it is, and making it free would be an incredible benefit to riding (especially if a person is struggling financially). I think that it would be a pretty incredible opportunity in a place like San Francisco where public transportation is a pretty popular. As Ellen mentioned previously, it would be a huge benefit to air quality by decreasing the amount of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere. I think this is a really great idea, and would like to be that philanthropy would be a solution to the money problem (people are good? give bus money??)
Thanks for the comment, Ellen. I agree with your statement that increased use of public transportation can reduce city smog. As electric vehicles become more popular, maybe public transportation could also transition to electricity-based fuel, regardless of whether or not the fare is waived. Stanford has a free bus system that's 100% electric/hybrid which is incredibly convenient... but that's Stanford for you.
I also appreciate Carlos's analysis of the public infrastructure "death spiral," which involves low public transit usage. While fare-free transit would increase the number of people who use public transit, I never considered Ellen's point, that this might lead to overcrowding on buses and trains. I guess we'll see how this issue plays out in the cities that are testing free public transit.
Samantha brought up the idea of using tax money to fund public transportation. That makes sense to me; after all, tax money is used to maintain roads and other similar public goods. Another option along that same vein is raising the gas price to account for money lost from bus fares. The article stipulated that it would only take a 2-3 cent raise in gas prices to fund fare-free transit, which doesn't seem unreasonable to me. Would this 2-3 cent price raise be enough to satisfy gas companies, who Carlos mentioned might oppose expansion of public transportation? That depends on whether or not free public transportation will actually convert a significant number of regular car users to public transit users. My prediction is no because in the U.S., unlike other countries, there's a cultural preference of private transportation above public transportation, especially among older generations. So most people who commute every day with a car aren't likely to suddenly switch to taking the bus every day, even if it is free. If fares were waived, I think the biggest increase in public transit use will come from people who can't afford a car, which is of course, is part of the argument that free public transport will lessen inequality.
I think free public transportation is a great idea and something that I hope will be implemented in the future. I think this system would work best in big cities, although I agree that it would be difficult to fund such a massive project. Traffic and highly congested freeways would probably become a thing of the past, and as big cities like LA (and even here in the Bay) continue to grow and their roadways become more clogged, I think public transportation will definitely become more developed. Especially in such cities where poverty is high, having access to free, reliable public transportation would allow for more people to commute to work more efficiently and perhaps even open up more opportunities for those who are struggling financially, as transportation would be one less thing to worry about. Supplemented with the growing concerns about the environment and carbon emissions, I can definitely see public transportation becoming a higher priority. However, for this free system to succeed, I think the US first needs to develop a more efficient public transportation system in general. Many big cities outside of the US have very well-developed, efficient public transportation systems, however in LA and SF, such systems are very limited.
Post a Comment