9
Let's get serious about public transit
Robert Reich
To view this content, Javascript must be enabled and Adobe Flash Player must be installed.
TEXT OF COMMENTARY
Kai Ryssdal: Honk if the ride to work's getting a little bit easier.
Record gas prices have pushed more commuters than ever onto buses and trains. Believe it or not, it's even happening here in car-crazy California. Transit officials in San Francisco have actually taken seats out of their light rail trains to make room for more passengers.
All good, right? Less demand for oil, fewer cars spewing out greenhouse gases, healthier overall for cities.
Commentator Robert Reich says the answer should be a resounding "Yeah, it's good"... if only our transit systems were prepared for the crush.
Robert Reich: For years, policy makers have wondered just how high gas prices would have to go before drivers switch to public transportation. Now we know: it's around $4 a gallon, because millions of Americans are switching to buses, trains and subways to go to work.
Rather than bemoaning the spike in gas prices, we should be celebrating. Public transit not only reduces congestion but also reduces the nation's energy needs and cuts carbon emissions that bring on global warming.
Problem is, we don't have nearly enough public transportation. Even more absurdly, right now when they're needed the most, public transportation systems across the land are cutting back on services. Why? Because their costs are rising -- their budgets are strained by the same sky-high fuel prices that are forcing people out of their cars -- and because their revenues are dropping. Public transit systems are financed largely through sales tax revenues, which are declining as consumers spend less.
This is crazy. If public transit officials need more to cover extra fuel costs and declining revenues, they could raise ticket prices a bit. But they should do far more. Expand whole systems -- more buses, more trains, more light rail. If they can't finance this by floating bonds, they should go to Congress and make public transit a key part of the next stimulus package.
Look, fuel costs aren't going down. Global demand is increasing faster than supplies. This is the perfect time to expand and modernize public transit systems.
America hasn't been really serious about public transit for almost a century. Most of New York City's subway system was built over 100 years ago. Los Angeles ripped out its trams long ago. Boston's Big Dig, the most costly infrastructure project in memory, is entirely for cars. In recent years, only a few farsighted and ambitious cities, like Portland, Oregon, have invested in light rail.
What better way to get the economy going and save energy and the environment in years to come, than to create a modern, efficient system of public transportation in America?
Ryssdal: Robert Reich is a professor of public policy at the University of California, Berkeley.
Dear Mr. Reich,
Excuse me, but you are wrong! $4 a gallon is not because millions of Americans are switching to public transportation to go to work - millions of Americans are switching to public transportation (if public transportation is available) to go to work because of $4 a gallon! We pay high gas price to go to work and there is no alternative – there is no public transportation in the United States. Sorry. There are few exceptions - New York, Boston, San Francisco, but you can use public transportation only if you live in the city. State collect gas taxes, sales taxes for each car sale, registration fee, and so on… - result is millions of dollars. And it is only about money, not about people.
You celebrate high gas prices? Did you invest some money in oil industry? If you did – good for you! I did not.
I am not able to understand the fact that why employers are not promoting telecommuting. If an organization can outsource their job to India or China, whey can’t they allow their employees work from their home in the same country? At least they are at the same time zone.
I live in Washington DC metro area. I believe if the employers allow telecommuting two days a week, the consumption of gas will be reduced at least 5 gallons per commuter per week. The person who is telecommuting will be out of the roads and other drivers will have smooth ride in traffic, which is results in fuel saving.
Mr.Kelly:
You are assuming a virtually unlimited supply of gasoline, something which is clearly not in evdience. Even if a huge portion of the Earth's petroleum remains in the ground, we've got out the majority of the stuff that can be retreived EASILY and CHEAPLY. What remains will be very expensive to get, and might actually require more energy expended on driling that the oil we get out of the ground. We still have time to fix our inevitable trap, but we must get moving NOW.
I'm glad I'm not the only one who is glad to see gas prices at $4 a gallon. Granted I'm not happy when my wife tells me it cost her $75 to fill up the minivan, but it might actually make her think about driving it less. And that's the point. Without high prices for gas and other fossil fuel-based energy, we don't have a hope in hell of actually tackling global warming effectively and bringing new forms of clean energy and transportation to market. I totally agree with Tom Friedman's recent piece about government needing to set a floor for gas prices of at least $4 a gallon, regardless of the price of oil. Unfortunately there is only a small percentage of folks who are actually willing to make sacrifices in the name of environmental sustainability. The rest of us need our wallets as motivation.
Professor Reich's commentary is on point. As Americans we need to get over this whole I want my own mentality and start thinking about the group. Mass transit, I feel will help to facilitate this ideal. Thank very much for pointing out the importance of public transit in our society.
People are too spread out for public transit. I see all these people complaining about how the bus is inconvenient for their 20 mile commute. (That is the width of an entire city). Or they can't afford a house near their work. (Time to downsize, maybe let the kids share a bedroom?) Or hydrogen is the answer (Great, where are the wells of hydrogen we can drill?). Seriously, there is no free lunch -- we got a nice long loan on the trust costs of gasoline (environmental and financial) but both those bills are coming due. Also, people complain about the subsidies for paying for public transit, saying that cars are cheaper unless gas is $15 -- don't forget to tack on the carbon tax from auto pollution and sprawl to the 'true cost of ownership'.
There is a fundamental flaw in Robert Reich's advocacy for public transportation, namely the assumption that high gas prices are here to stay. Basic economics tells us that while high prices curb demand, they also stimulate production. While gas prices may never go back to where they were 2 years ago, they are not likely to sustain their current level. Meanwhile, new mass transit projects require a long lead time to come online and, when finally ready, are unlikely to get the ridership they need to be sustainable. The current energy situation is nothing compared to the energy crises of the 70's and what did we see then? Numerous schemes to get us off oil, which all came to naught.
Robert Reich definitely has the right idea. If a major investment were made for mass transportation here in Los Angeles, the long term effect would be significant, considering our never-ending traffic and gridlock.
I work 35 miles from where I live. Driving, it takes me roughly 30 minutes depending on traffic. If I attempt to utilize public transportation, it takes me 2.5 hours, if and only if I make every single transfer on time (It requires at least 5 bus changes)
Can I afford to continue to pay for gas? No. Can I afford to add 5 hours to my work day? No. Can I afford to move closer to work? No. Are there jobs in my field closer to home? No.
Please help.
MR. Reich correctly articulates the need for one of the necessary elements of a comprehensive energy policy. Sadly, the most recent Administrations and Congresses have reflected special interests that insisted the only solution was drilling in environmentally sensitive areas while pursuing other policies that only encouraged large vehicle production like cars and trucks--which further increase energy demand. Developing public transportation should be a priority with the increased population density that now exists on both coasts.
