Why is American public transportation so poorly funded?
From the largest city in America, New York City, the NYC suburbs of Long Island, New Jersey (NJ Transit is the worst in the nation), etc.
Why is public transportation in America so poorly funded? Yes, I know America is very car-centric and we have been since the 1950s, but why in the 2010s heading into the 2020s, is it so poorly-funded? |
Because we as a nation don't make it more expensive to operate a car and therefore do not incentivize people to use or pay for public transportation with a few isolated exceptions.
|
https://i.imgur.com/dxfxnw2.png
(made using data from https://www.globalpetrolprices.com/gasoline_prices/ ) |
Quote:
|
There is little to no market pressure to have good transit in the United States.
Even in New York City, which has, by far, the most extensive mass transit system of any metropolitan area in the United States, most of the lines and stations were built a long time ago. To me, this is a sign that there hasn't been much market pressure for this system to expand and modernize. And, if this is true in New York City, then it must be true almost everywhere else. Would love to hear alternative takes on this. |
Why are we talking about market pressure in the context of public services planned and mainly funded by governments and public agencies? Just because legacy systems such as much of the NYC subway were created by market conditions many decades ago, what connection does that have to the allocation of public funds for their operation and maintenance today?
One could say that such decisions are affected by political pressure, but that's a totally separate thing from market pressure. |
Quote:
Calgary (metro population <1.5M) https://i.imgur.com/7R8A8LV.png Dallas: https://i.imgur.com/1OXUNlW.png |
Quote:
There won't be political pressure for good mass transit systems in the US until gas costs $8/gallon. |
Quote:
https://www.dart.org/ShareRoot/debtd...cialReport.pdf Keeping it simple, DART collected $593 million in sales taxes, $98 million from federal grants, and $75 million from fares. Local contribution of revenues amounting to around 85%, Uncle Same contribution around 15%. https://www.transportation.gov/sites...hts-book_0.pdf If we take this same ratio nationally, and totaled FTA and FRA allocations from the USDOT in 2018 was all for transit, around $13 billion, here's some math that might surprise you. 15/13 = 85/x, cross multiplying 15x=13 x 85, x = 1105/15 = 73.6667 Yes, local governments and local agencies should have contriibuted around $74 billion for transit, adding the $13 billion Uncle Sam contributed should total around $87 billion for transit in 2018. That's assuming DART's ratios are the same nationally - which I have no idea is true or not. But the major point I would like to make is that FTA and FRA allocations of around $13 billion does not really reflect what America as a whole is spending on transit. In 2018, per wiki America has 327 million population. some more math: $87 billion / 327 million people = $266 per person could have been spent on transit. That per person, not per rider. In Dallas less than 2% ride public transit. That varies significantly nationally. I'm not sure how that stacks up world wide - but I do not think it is as low as many think it is, because they are looking at 15% data instead of 100% overlooking and forgetting about the other 85%. |
Quote:
If gas prices were to rise, people may respond in a variety of ways depending on the conditions they're presented with. They may start buying electric or more fuels efficient cars, may use transit more often, or may live closer to work pushing up real estate prices in certain areas. The options they choose will be greatly influenced by government policies. Just like they are now. What, if any, influence their choices have on government policy is uncertain, but what is certain is that it has little relation to market dynamics. As you already pointed out, there is already significant demand for transit in NYC. It's probably already as impractical now for the majority of people to get around there by car as it would be in Dallas with $8 gas prices. Yet the lack of political pressure sufficient to secure new funding proves that political decisions don't work that way. |
Quote:
The fact is America can afford to be car oriented and, in some ways, it's necessary. I just drove to Denver (something I do 3-4 times a year) which is 1000 miles one way. This time my Dad and I went to my sister's house with all of our tools to renovate a big section of it. When you are talking a unified society spread over those distances, mass transits not really doing diddly squat. Obviously it has its uses in dense urban areas and corridors, but the vast vast majority of the United States doesn't fit that bill. This is like asking why China has all kinds of HSR and the US does not... Well gee, maybe it's got something to do with the fact that China has 1.5 billion people in the same space that the US has 300 million? Though I gotta say, it's really nice to be able to drive all the way from Chicago to Denver and only pay like $2/gallon for gas. E-85 in Nebraska was as low as $1.85. a few years ago it was headed towards a dollar. I think I saw E-85 at like $1.30 a couple years back when oil prices were tanking. |
Quote:
I do think, however, that if there was more market pressure in the United States to build transit systems, then there would be the political will to build better ones. If not, then that would mean that our political system is flawed, which is something that I think has yet to be proven. |
Quote:
As for comparison with other countries, here's the UK: https://i.imgur.com/HdpXOfx.png About 130 billion passenger-km for £20.4B. https://assets.publishing.service.go...-summaries.pdf |
Quote:
|
Quote:
This is what President Reagan said about Miami's new $1 Billion dollar Metrorail system back in 1985 : The cars are clean, air-conditioned and safe, and there are always plenty of seats. Unfortunately, as President Reagan noted earlier this month, the 10-month-old system has too many empty seats. ''In Miami,'' the President told a conference of county officials meeting in Washington, ''the $1 billion subsidy helped build a system that serves less than 10,000 daily riders. That comes to $100,000 per passenger. It would have been a lot cheaper to buy everyone a limousine.'' Miami is not alone in its problems with financing a rapid transit system. Los Angeles has been planning a $3 billion subway system that has been put in jeopardy by the Reagan budget-cutting efforts. ''The position in the budget is that we can't afford the Los Angeles plan,'' Ralph L. Stanley, Administator of the Urban Mass Transportation Administration. ''The issue for the nation is that the Federal Government cannot afford to pay the share of mass transit costs it has carried in the past,'' he added. ''We can't underwrite it all, and there are going to be winners and losers.'' Plans for transit systems in many Sun Belt systems, which are heavily dependent on the automobile, have come under a new scrutiny, Mr. Stanley said, and many have retreated from original costly heavy rail systems that paralleled existing urban highway routes. He mentioned Houston, Orlando, Fla., and Jacksonville, Fla., as cities that have been forced to reconsider mass transit plans. https://www.nytimes.com/1985/03/29/u...py-future.html Conservatives have never been fond of funding mass transit. |
Quote:
Hell, even with the 1 trillion dollar stimulus package Obama gave barely any to public transport. One of his biggest blunders in my view. |
Quote:
Calling everyone's views you don't like racist doesn't change anything. It just makes you hate others more because now they are...RaCiSt! |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 10:51 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.