‘Telling low-income people to rely on transit while high-income people drive cars is also inequitable because cars are so much more efficient’

The Antiplanner

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: How confident are you that city leaders will spend Proposition 5 funds responsibly?
  Clark County Today’s weekly poll asks readers how confident they are that Vancouver city leaders will spend Proposition 5 police levy funds responsibly.
• 
  Opinion: Sophomore season may be even better for former Camas standout Addison Harris
  Ken Vance writes that former Camas standout Addison Harris had a breakout 27-point game for Montana State, signaling a strong sophomore season ahead.
• 
  Opinion: Interstate Bridge: $273 million on consultants for ‘basically the same project?’
  Joe Cortright questions how the Interstate Bridge Replacement Project has spent more than $273 million on consultants for what he calls “basically the same project” as the failed Columbia River Crossing.
• 
  Opinion: $1.8 trillion for nothing
  Randall O’Toole argues that despite $1.8 trillion in taxpayer funding since 1991, transit use has declined, delivering little public benefit for massive spending.
• 
  Opinion: The right of way in roundabouts
  Doug Dahl explains who has the right-of-way when two cars enter a roundabout at different speeds, emphasizing due care and responsible driving.