Public Transport's DLC :0
Breaking Bogart (08)
This week on Breaking Bogart, I am opening this entry and welcoming my readers with a purposefully vague, and hopefully humorous, acronym. The most common substitution of the three letters (DLC) would be: Down Loadable Content. The digital content being for video games.
In the case of today's breaking bogart, DLC of course stands for: Dirty Little Secret. So this entire preamble is to communicate to you that we will be discussing the following topics: public transportation, whether or not it should be free, and of course, its Dirty Little Secret. (Okay I'll stop trying to make the acronym a thing). I will introduce a discussion point involving these points, then I will address the topic as I understand it according to a discussion between opponents and proponents of said topics. Each of these opponents and proponents spoke on the Freakonomics podcast, "Should Public Transit be Free." Speaking participants whom also provided their input include: Marcus Finbom, Michelle WU, Robbie Makinen, Brian Taylor, and Shashi Verma. (Full source list will be included at the end of this blog posting along with a link to the podcast.)
 |
| The Freakonomics logo. |
City Sklyine
Simplistic in Concept: Free Transit
The concept of fee-free or fare-free public transportation is certainly an idealistic and impactful concept. At face value, free public transit holds the promise of improving atmospheric climate conditions, distribution of economic prosperity, social equity and mobility, as well as increased transit efficiency.
I will provide some direct, measured, and proposed benefits of ramping up public transit integration as well as reducing its cost:
- Reducing the usage of personal automobiles by citizens has been proven to reduce roadside emissions by up to 40% in cities such as London, England. (Freakonomics).
- Public transport could better act as a social service and increase the effectiveness of overlapping social services. Houseless people, and any other class in need of assistance, would be far better connected to other resources capable of providing meaningful assistance and change.
- Low income families are the people who need free transit the most. If anything, the charge of a fare acts as a constant, regressive tax on lower income families who would otherwise be capable of improving their economic standings if able to avoid the constant fees.
- Transit systems as they stand now are held back by dedication to charging transit fare. Current fare and payment systems are bloated, convoluted, time consuming, etc. Studies have shown that many shortfalls of public transit actually stem from the process of collecting payment. Whether the presence of a payment needed or the physical act of handing over legal tender, the systems would operate much more efficiently without these tedious processes. (Freakonomics).
 |
| Public Transit Train |
Detractors declare the detriments of such systems largely through the lens of system application. Both proven and hypothetical benefits do not have much grounds for opposition on their own. Detractors are unable to posture themselves as opposed to the idealistic benefits free transit may provide. Therefore, when speaking on the reasons as to why transit should remain with its charging for fares, detractors of free public transit provide reasons adjacent to the concept and provide measures in which partial implementation could be made.
No matter how this issue is approached, a portion of funds that maintain the relatively safe and consistent operation of public transport rely on the payment which originates from passengers who pay for their fare. While the proportional size of these funds vary, they contribute to the maintenance and replenishment of consumables utilized by public transit vehicles. Capital goods, on the other hand, are for all financial intents entirely supported through currently existing government programs. The proposed free transit would then create a lack of funds of which the current system relies on. Sooner or later, this deficit would need to be addressed.
As with all government programs and economic change, the timetable and manner in which free transit changes come to fruition are numerous and complex. Aggressive and proactive political support has been shown to be necessary to accomplish any meaningful change in this political and financial arena of transit. As I will discuss later, the U.S. of A has had its cities and roads constructed towards enabling citizens to operate personal motor vehicles to their wants and needs. The challenge of altering public transportation and then allowing free use of it, balloons out into a massive endeavor requiring re-evaluation of all current, stubbornly in-place systems. In addition, due to every city's diverse and specific needs, the larger an implementation of these policies reaches, the more the cost of doing so will increase proportionally. To many people, the effort to work upstream, so to speak, is not worth their time and money.
 |
| Industrial City Block |
Zero Fare, Positive Appeal
When researchers have sought out empirical data to determine the status of public support to free public transit, it was determined that there is in fact broad, public interest and a potential for political support for it. However, when research pursued information on a more complex level, it was discovered that said support was largely rooted in selfish reasons and originated from those who did not plan on utilizing the fruits of a more integrated and/or free public transit system. What do I mean by this? Well, by a significant margin, free public transit benefits those that need it the most; those being lower income individuals and families.(Freakonomics).
When free transit is presented under the light of assisting less well-off people, it does not gain much support. However, when free transit is presented with its other positive externalities, (as discussed earlier) and omitting helping more poor peoples, policies begin to gain more traction and positive support. (Freakonomics). Quite the dirty little secret. Particularly, the idea of road traffic and congestion being significantly reduced is appealing to motorists in quite the selfish manner. Those people would not utilize the transit systems, but are quite ready to reap its benefits.
 |
| A beautiful drive on the open road. |
Another quite scandalous secret is that within the United States of America, once low income families are able to afford a personal automobile, said vehicle is much more capable at expanding the family's mobility. Their mobility improves physically, economically, and socially at a a rate much more substantive that public transportation could allow. This allowance is certain as of current transit status. An assumption can be made towards proposed public transit changes while still holding true. (Freakonomics). The reasons behind this fact are complex and varied. One reason why this may hold so true is that the U.S. has been built for, and continues to be built for, the operation of personal motor vehicles. So if low income families are capable of escaping poverty and securing an automobile, they will be better off in utilizing it than to continue to save and use public transit.
On an even deeper level, it should be discussed that only negative or only positive reinforcement for people to use public transit is ineffective. (Freakonomics). For an altered public transit system to be successful, motorists must be enticed to use the system, and also penalized for choosing to operate their personal motor vehicle. The goal, as Brian Taylor puts it, is for the driving experience and frequency to be, "great, but rarer." (Freakonomics). Driving a personal vehicle should not be a miserable one, but as "Freakonomics" guests argue: an expensive one. Public transit systems are effective when personal vehicle use is penalized and paid for by the driver, and public transit usage is free for those who need it most and cheaper than driving for the rest. Many are not willing to pay that cost. Arguably, the majority of the U.S. population is not willing to do so.
 |
| Toll Road |
At What Cost?
The economical concept of opportunity cost is applicable to the introduction/implementation of free public transit. Opportunity cost is even applicable to an increase in public transit implementation, regardless of its cost to patrons. The important take away from this point is as such: Altering a public transit system must include a set of economic and social tradeoffs, as the economic theory states.
The question must therefore be asked: What infrastructure, programs, and pursuits could be undertaken besides those of free public transit? What is certain is that achieving the goal of any sort of free transit is one of mighty effort. But must that effort be spent in such a way? While I myself do not have the answer to these questions, they are ones that must be seriously considered and ones that those against free public transit will necessarily bring up as society moves onward.
Link to podcast and sources:
Should Public Transit be Free?
- Marcus Finbom, traffic planner in Stockholm, Sweden.
- Robbie Makinen, president and C.E.O. of the Kansas City Area Transportation Authority.
- Brian Taylor, professor of urban planning and public policy and director of the Institute of Transportation Studies at the University of California, Los Angeles.
- Shashi Verma, director of strategy and C.T.O. at Transport for London.
- Michelle Wu, mayor of Boston.
Comments
Post a Comment