I received an e-mail recently from a public transit professional who is questioning the emphasis the industry puts on attracting choice riders. In light of funding shortfalls that have led to fare hikes and service cuts at many systems, wouldn't it make more sense for transit properties to focus their increasingly limited resources on serving the transit dependent?
Here's how this concerned transit professional framed his argument:
Promoting transit for
discretionary riders seems to be a no-brainer, whether for commuting or
environmental reasons. In fact, what is the point of promoting transit to the
choir, the transit dependent? However, every additional rider is an additional
expense. We are not a for-profit industry. We would basically save the
community money by closing shop, but of course, we have a political mandate to
provide transit to those who cannot drive. So putting more discretionary riders
on transit does two things. First, it adds cost. With a 20% farebox recovery
ratio, that means for every 1 discretionary ride, the rider pays 20% and the
community must come up with 80% of the cost. Second, discretionary riders have
a higher standard of comfort and convenience. They demand cleaner buses and
amenities. They want more amenities at bus stops and bus stations. They want
more security. Basically, in order to get discretionary riders out of their
cars, it means we have to provide competitive comfort and convenience with
private cars, and in some cases those private cars are luxury BMWs and
Cadillacs. Now, some may argue, improving comfort and convenience for all is
not a bad idea, but would transit dependent riders truly pay higher fares for a
spanking clean bus shelter versus one that is a bit dingy? When I’ve traveled
the developing world, transit may not be the cleanest and most comfortable, but
it’s affordable and plentiful.
In America, a certain
percentage of our population simply cannot drive. They are too young, too old,
disabled, or simply too poor to afford a car. Imagine if a certain percentage
of our population simply could not afford to eat. Certainly, we would subsidize
their meals, let’s imagine by setting up cafeteria’s to feed them all. Would we
then try to get everyone else to eat at these cafeterias? If the cost of each
meal was subsidized 80%, that means for every meal, the community would have to
come up with 80% of the cost. But in order to attract everyone to eat at these
cafeteria’s, we would have to make them as competitive as private restaurants,
add table clothes, improve the menu, use china instead of paper plates, add
dishwashers, etc. Now imagine tax revenue falls, and not only would we have to
increase the price of the meals, but we would start cutting back meals to the
entire population. In other words, those who cannot afford to eat, eat less
while those who can afford to eat, continue to get their meals subsidized. Does
this make any sense?
I am sure there are
many transit agencies out there that have commuter routes, and at the same time,
instead of eliminating these commuter routes when revenue falls, they simply cut
back service on all the routes. Instead of simply telling discretionary riders,
sorry, you have to get back into your cars, they’re telling everyone, mostly
transit-dependent riders, to pay more and get less service. Is this
right?
Of course, in dense
cities like New York and San Francisco, transit not only serves the purpose of
transporting those who cannot drive, but it also serves the purpose of
mitigating what would otherwise be impossible traffic and extraordinary parking
fees and lost productivity. However, in most U.S. cities downtown parking is
affordable and traffic is acceptable.
Perhaps we have to shift our thinking from competing with private cars to being primarily if not exclusively the service provider for the transit dependent, guaranteeing them affordable and plentiful transportation in an automobile-designed society.
Photo: Otterman56 via Flickr
Recent Comments