‘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:
- Opinion: 2026 Washington Poll: Voters want economic focus, spending restraint, and ed transparency
Results from the first Washington Poll show voters prioritizing the economy, spending restraint, and school transparency, with broad support for education reforms and concern over housing affordability. - Opinion: House Bill 2481 will stifle innovation and hurt businesses
Mark Harmsworth argues that House Bill 2481 would restrict market-driven pricing, increase regulatory burdens, and ultimately harm Washington businesses and consumers. - Opinion: Kindness is always welcome, even in places where one does not always find it
Paul Valencia reflects on how a brief moment of kindness between a journalist and a football coach underscores the importance of respect in journalism and public life. - Opinion: Crossing the mighty Columbia River is getting mighty expensive
An opinion column argues lawmakers must reassess the I-5 Columbia River Bridge replacement after revised estimates show the project’s probable cost has more than doubled. - Letter: ReformCast launches with exclusive interview with Councilor Michelle Belkot
Rob Anderson announces the launch of ReformCast, a new video podcast featuring conversations about Clark County government, beginning with an interview of Councilor Michelle Belkot.
wpDiscuz
