Mass Transit And Freeloaders
June 6th, 2008 Posted in Bonnie Sesolak, Fuel, Mass Transit
By Bonnie Sesolak, NMA Development Director
Last Friday’s Wall Street Journal had two articles neatly juxtaposed. The first was “Riders Swamp Public Transit” and the second “Revenge of the Freeloaders.” Seemingly, the two articles were completely unrelated, but not really.
According to the public transit article, high fuel prices are driving commuters to city busses, trains, and other forms of mass transit. The irony is that the same high fuel prices are bankrupting the agencies responsible for public transportation systems.
Consequently, instead of making hay while the sun shines by accommodating all these new riders, these agencies are cutting back on service, dropping routes, and actually reducing their capacity to meet transportation demands! Busses and trains are jammed full of riders, and other customers are left standing on the sidewalk because there is no room for new passengers.
If we start at the source of this conundrum we have the owners of petroleum who have raised the price of their commodity because of growing demand. Then we have the oil companies engaged in the extraction, shipping, refining, and retailing of the petroleum who raise their prices because their costs have increased. Certain of the commercial users of petroleum products also increase there prices to accommodate their increasing costs to do business.
But wait, what did the public transit agencies do when they were hit with higher fuel bills? Did they raise their prices to offset the higher fuel bills?
Of course not! Public transit is part of the welfare system, it is in place to provide transportation to those who can’t afford transportation, at least that seems to be the operational philosophy.
Now we get to the “freeloader” issue. Are all those commuters stuffing the busses and trains actually welfare recipients that just like to ride during the morning and evening rush hours? Obviously not, they are workers, shoppers, students and other gainfully employed folks who have one thing in common; they can count. It’s a lot cheaper to use public transport and let someone else subsidize their travel.
The solution is fairly straight forward. We move public transit from the welfare model to a transportation model.
The people who use the system pay for the system. The population that cannot afford fares can apply to the welfare agencies for vouchers or passes that permit use of the public transit system. The transit system can be compensated for the vouchers/passes by the welfare agency.
Transit fares would undoubtedly increase, significantly, but there would still be substantial savings in comparison to driving and parking an automobile each day. A transit company that is dependant on its customers, and not government funding and grants, is more likely to be accommodating and receptive to meeting their customer’s needs.
Unrealistic, utopian? Not really. Sure, many public transit companies would fold, either because they were redundant and unneeded, or because they were unable to adapt to a transportation model that pays its own way. But, others would flourish and new private entrants could enter the market because they would not have to compete against publicly subsidized systems.
Five dollar a gallon, and up, fuel costs could usher in the golden age of mass transit, all we have to do is shed the welfare mentality and let the riders and the providers sort it out.
Image Credit: einarfour
Other Related Articles
7 Responses to “Mass Transit And Freeloaders”
By Roy on Jun 17, 2008
“…remember the largest chunk of government handouts go to that piece of concrete below your tires. Those on the train still pay for the road (though possibly less due to less gas tax to them).”
While it is true that the largest portion of the transportation budget goes towards roadways, I would hardly call it a “handout”. The government at all levels taxes motor vehicles and motor vehicle fuel in order to pay for those roads, and if 100% of that tax went towards those roads, they would pay for themselves.
Additionally, those on the train do *not* pay for the roads. Indeed, it is just the opposite. They don’t even pay for the train. The money taken in by the fuel taxes gets used by government to subsidize the public transportation system, and without those subsidies, those systems would go broke. Please don’t misunderstand me. I am aware that the users of public transport pay a fare. However, in all but a few cases, this fare does not even come close to covering the costs of the system. Thus, that system has to be subsidized from other sources - mostly the road use and fuel taxes.
Back in the early ’90’s - in Portland Oregon I believe - a study was done comparing the amount of human traffic handled by a light rail public transport system verses a single lane of urban interstate. The expressway lane was, running away, the most cost effective in terms of “people moved per unit time”.
There are many reasons to have and to use a public transportation system. Cost per person moved is *not* one of them.
By Dan on Jun 17, 2008
Absolutely correct! My father was the chair of the public transit committe in a small Washington city, and we had this arguement several times. Government subsidies must have a means test! If a service in the private sector doesn’t generate enough revenue to cover it’s costs plus make a profit for the effort of running it, it goes out of business. Only in the public sector do we here people demand we take a neighbor’s money to pay for our elderly, poor, transportation, food, or drugs. It’s just wrong and should be confined to only the most needy if implemented at all. Unfortunately, government seeks to expand just like any organization, but government only costs the economy (ergo all producers) rather than generates GDP that enriches those that work.
By MrNA on Jun 8, 2008
Your argument missing some important points:
1. When debating the welfare given to the transit “freeloaders,” remember the largest chunk of government handouts go to that piece of concrete below your tires. Those on the train still pay for the road (though possibly less due to less gas tax to them).
2. By pushing people off of mass transit you will find less need for radar detectors. You will never be able to drive faster than 5 MPH to work.
By Blacque Jacque Shellacque on Jun 6, 2008
Look how well the demand for energy is being met by private industry.
An outfit providing energy can’t be as responsive as they would like when they’re being regulated by some government entity, not to mention the sundry groups that routinely object to any sort of construction of large power-generation facilities to satisfy demand…
By Midnight on Jun 6, 2008
This is one time you missed the boat. Private transportation would just accommodate the busy routes, leaving the necessity of driving and parking to reach the new private routes. Moving people is not like moving bits and bytes on the Internet, keep in mind the telephone and cable systems providing service to non-economical areas were already in place because of regulations similar to public transit. As bad as it is, it would get a lot worse under private ownership. Look how well the demand for energy is being met by private industry. Free enterprise doesn’t always work in all situations
By Hubcap on Jun 6, 2008
Speaking of welfare, how about the huge corporate welfare handouts to the airlines?
They get tens of billions in government subsidies, yet they still manage to screw their employees and run their businesses into the ground (so to speak) apparently in exchange for allowing the TSA to treat their customers like Gitmo prisoners.
By Hubcap on Jun 6, 2008
I’ve lived in the west all my life. A couple years ago, I had the opportunity to vacation in DC.
I was absolutely amazed at the subway system there. Unbelievably fast, inexpensive, and easy to use.
Here in San Diego, we have basically no public transit. There is the trolly which really doesn’t go anywhere I ever need to go, and a pathetic bus system that operates on a “whenever” schedule.
I could ride the bus to work, but it would turn a 30-minute commute into a 3-hour, 2-transfer nightmare, and at the end of it all, not only would it still cost more than the gas, but I would STILL be sitting in traffic. Only now I would be on a noisy, smelly, uncomfortable bus and if I had to pee there’s nothing I can do.
Given the probably trillons that a decent public transportation system would cost, it just isn’t going to happen.
I think bio-diesel and electric cars are about the only alternative.
Don’t even get me started on this country’s piss-poor excuse for a rail system.