Cities Need More Public Transit, Not More Uber and Self-Driving Cars (xpost from GD)
http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/37061-cities-need-more-public-transit-not-more-uber-and-self-driving-carsThe Pew Charitable Trusts recently looked at the burden of transportation costs on the lower third of households and found that it consumed 15.7 percent of their income in 2014. (By contrast, transportation expenses were just 8.2 percent of the income of the top third of households.) This is a significant percentage and it is likely even higher for the poorest households in this group. It is also likely that the vast majority of these expenses were for necessary travel to: work, food shopping or doctors' appointments. (This group is not taking many vacations.)
Given the impact of transportation costs, cities should look more closely at supporting options, in both the short and long terms, to make cities more equitable and conducive to lower-cost transportation. Paramount among the considerations should be walking, which has very few direct costs, although it is not feasible for those who live far away from where they work, which is the case for many poor people right now. After that, public transportation, which can save many people a significant amount of money per month over using a personal vehicle, and is heavily relied upon by poorer city residents. Cities could do a far better job of serving the transportation needs of low-income people if they made public transportation free and extensive. This is very desirable from an equity perspective and likely only possible on a large scale for public systems. Lastly, cycling is also a low-cost option that cities should accommodate better, even though it suffers from some of the same downsides as walking, at least in most cities as they are currently laid out.
Cities should also be very cautious about supporting new technology that is inaccessible to the poor, such as ride-hailing services, which are usually more expensive than public transportation, are not required to accept cash, and almost always require smartphones and credit cards. For example, The New York Times uncritically touted the UberPOOL carpool service as cheap and environmentally friendly, but most of these benefits were illusory. The trip highlighted in the story was from the Tenderloin to Noe Valley in San Francisco, took somewhere between 25 to 55 minutes, and if split evenly, cost around $10. The same trip on the San Francisco Muni's J-Church light rail line would have taken 18 minutes and cost only $2.25.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
whatthehey
(3,660 posts)With European or Asian megalopolis population density do. Everyone else would just waste money on cash sink unwanted boondoggles.
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)See post 3 below. Transit does not have to mean expensive rail projects. In most places, buses will do just fine.
whatthehey
(3,660 posts)Unless the latter is higher than the former then my point stands. The vehicle type is irrelevant.
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)Transit is a public service. It long ago ceased to be profitable.
unc70
(6,325 posts)What is your point? All modes of transportation are subsidized in some way: roads, airports, sidewalks, rail, buses, etc.
Before Chapel Hill eliminated fares from the bus system, we were a typical transit system where the revenue from fares and sale of passes provided a relatively small percentage of the total operating cost of the system. The standard "solution" to that problem is to raise fares and cut service, which then reduces ridership and in turn reduces total revenue in spite of the fare increase. A classic death spiral.
Chapel Hill, Carrboro, and the University needed a bus system that worked. Given that we were already subsidizing most of the cost of the system, why not go all the way and eliminate fares for everyone? The towns voted in an extra property tax, the UNC students increased fees, etc.
And the fare boxes were gone! It was a lot harder and more complicated than that, but it worked. Routes ran faster without the delay to collect fares and check passes, and you could now board the buses at any door, not just at the front. It eliminated all the administrative overhead of dealing with cash on every bus.
But the big news was that ridership immediately doubled and kept increasing. Thankfully, there were Federal programs at that time based on ridership that helped us drastically increase the fleet size to meet the demand.
CHT has all the challenges of any public transit system. But it delivers a great SERVICE to our entire community.
Travis_0004
(5,417 posts)Smaller buses would allow more frequent routes, and to service routes that were not popular enough for large buses.
The union threatened a strike, because the smaller buses were non CDL (despite keeping CDL level buses and paying the same rate to a CDL driver if he was driving a smaller bus.
unc70
(6,325 posts)The Chapel Hill Transit system had smaller buses as part of its fleet for a while. They closely monitored all the costs associated with the various types of buses and concluded that the larger buses were better. There were higher maintenance costs with the smaller buses, similar fuel costs, and poorer reliability. CHT has now phased out the smaller buses. I will try to find the report detailing their experience.
Travis_0004
(5,417 posts)The smaller busses are about 90k compared to 400k for a full size bus. Better fuel economy, cheaper insurance, and easier to get around in tight places.
unc70
(6,325 posts)It works. We provide free buses for everyone. We voted a small increase in property taxes to make buses free throughout our transit system. Huge increase in ridership. That was 15 years ago. I believe Chapel Hill Transit is still the largest fare free transit system in the World.
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)