‘Telling low-income people to rely on transit while high-income people drive cars is also inequitable because cars are so much more efficient’
Danny Westneat, a columnist for the Seattle Times, openly wonders why Seattle is building so much light rail when we seem to be entering “an era of ‘untransit.’” He quotes a Stanford law review article saying that Zoom is “the modern equivalent of the streetcar — a technological advance that will profoundly alter land use.”
Instead of altering their plans, however, transit agencies and transit advocates are busy trying to figure out how to justify increased subsidies for decreased ridership. Many of them are hoping that “equity” can be the issue that tips the balance in favor of more subsidies.
A group called Elevated Chicago thinks that equity demands more transit subsidies and more subsidies to high-density development near transit stations. I wonder what that group thinks about the fact that more than 70 Chicago Transit Authority workers made more than $200,000 last year, and one made more than $300,000. How equitable is that?
Meanwhile, Streetlight has published a report on how to ensure equity in transportation. At first glance, the report is about all kinds of transportation, but the only examples given are public transit.
Get this straight: transit is the most inequitable form of transportation we have because most of the taxes used to subsidize it are regressive and less than 5 percent of low-income workers rely on transit to get to work. That means 95 percent of low-income workers are disproportionately paying for transit rides they aren’t taking.
Telling low-income people to rely on transit while high-income people drive cars is also inequitable because cars are so much more efficient, costing less and getting people to destinations much faster. The real issue transportation equity is that about 7 million low-income households lack access to an automobile. Those who sincerely care about equity should devote less effort to transit and more towards getting more low-income people into cars.
If the $64 billion spent subsidizing transit in 2020 were spent on helping low-income people buy cars, it would have been enough to give every carless low-income family more than $9,000 towards a car. I don’t advocate that, but for a lot less money we could give people low-interest loans to buy a car, thus giving them access to the same economic opportunities that everyone else has.
The Antiplanner is an economist with 45 years of experience critiquing public land, urban, transportation, and other government plans.
Also read:
- POLL: After hearing state leaders describe the I-5 Bridge as vulnerable in an earthquake, what is your reaction?
State and local leaders describe the I-5 Bridge as structurally at risk but recommend drivers continue crossing it while complex replacement plans unfold. - Opinion: Historical state income tax and another massive operating budget highlight the end of the 2026 legislative session
Rep. John Ley details the passage of a state income tax, an expanding $80 billion budget, and new Clark County infrastructure funding following the 2026 legislative session. - Opinion: Fighting for transparency in Washington government
A recent court decision allows Washington lawmakers broad new secrecy over internal records, as advocates report rising obstacles to government transparency and public engagement. - Opinion: Attacking Democracy in the name of Democracy
Ryan Frost critiques several 2024 legislative bills, warning unchecked Democrat dominance enables policies that erode local accountability, block referenda, and threaten citizen participation. - Opinion: Washington passed an income tax to fund education, then the same majority cut education — and left $700+ million on the table
State officials passed a new income tax to fund education, then approved over $1 billion in cuts—while forgoing $700 million in annual federal scholarships students could have received.
wpDiscuz
