We Need Better Public Transportation — But Can We Afford It?
Here’s an article co-written by environmentalist superstar Bill McKibben that speaks to the need for better public transportation. The authors point out that transportation generally contributes 27% of the total greenhouse gas emissions. Since transportation is 98%+ based on gasoline and diesel, it comes with a huge price tag in terms of not only CO2 but damage to our lungs and our ecosystems, and carries threats to our national security as well.
The article argues for a 3-step mass transit program to “help our communities thrive, protect our climate, and promote human health.”
But what about the cost of a massive improvement in public transportation? Who’s going to pay for this? Isn’t it common knowledge that our government is broke? Actually, no. For those of you who may not have seen it, here’s “The Story of Broke.”
And here’s another way of examining the issue. Take a step back and examine the essential structure and function of the public sector. In principle, government raises revenue from taxes on one hand, and, on the other, allocates that revenue into areas where we see a benefit for the people: national defense, infrastructure, criminal justice, etc. We can all debate the allocation according to our political ideology. Do we want to recalculate entitlements? Re-adjust the defense budget? Not a chance; there is no political will for any of this.
So as long as we’re OK on talking about things that will never happen, let’s rethink the revenue side. Here are two ideas on this subject that make sense to me; I’d be interested in your opinions.
1) Tax Wealth. Take Warren Buffet up on his suggestion; it is true, as he says, that the mega-rich have been “coddled long enough by a billionaire-friendly Congress.”
Taxing wealth is a good idea for many reasons, one of which is rooted in concerns for the quality of our democracy. Effective government is rooted in an educated, informed electorate, and the shrinking of the middle class and the even-widening gulf between rich and poor is ruining our republic. In particular:
• the richest quintile of Americans owns 93% of non-home wealth
• for Americans with incomes over $10 million, nearly half of their income comes from capital gains and dividends, on most of which they pay only a 15% tax
• from 2002 to 2007, two-thirds of all income went to the richest 1%
• in the first year after the recession, a startling 93% of all new income went to the richest 1%.
Yes, tax the billionaires, and use the revenue to build things that the average citizen really needs, like environmentally friendly transportation. Tax the wealth that passes freely from one generation to the next, and is gifted to people who use it to exert enormous power, many of whom wouldn’t know a decent day’s work if it slapped them across the face.
2) Tax Polluters. The only reason that our civilization is in the process of ruining the only home it has is that there is a huge financial incentive to do exactly that. Our global energy policy makes it artificially inexpensive for each of us, in our day-to-day decision making about how we live our lives, to consume resources — energy in particular. To the degree that we actively promote the consumption of our resources, we’re actively accelerating the destruction of our Earth.
We have ample evidence that the use of fossil fuels is wrecking our planet, but we seem to be mysteriously powerless to deal with this.
How about this: If you want energy from fossil fuels, we ask you to pay for it. Oil should not be subsidized by our governments, which it is today to the tune of $500 billion annually on a worldwide basis.
We’re also going to ask that you clean up after your mess. In the U.S. alone, the coal industry is causing $250 billion in healthcare costs annually, mostly via lung disease. The people who live within a mile of the San Diego Freeway (US 405, near where I live in Southern California) suffer several times the incidence of lung cancer experienced by people outside that region. And one other thing, we’re going to ask you to pay for the long-term environmental damage in the form of ocean acidification and global climate change. Those figures are far into the trillions, costs which should be included in the price of coal, oil, and gas.
Two ideas, submitted for your consideration.
…Freedom is still there. Don’t live in such a city. That said, we are finally at a point in technology where we can begin to embrace the truly discontiguous workforce.
You make a good point if those in the cities actually paid their own way. This is a blue state red state arguement. I live in a rural area that will never in my lifetime see anything resembling mass transit yet I will be expected to pay for the folks in NY, Chicago and LA to have their futuristic modes of transportation. The hinterlands population should not be enslaved to support the values of those who choose to live like rats in a cage.
Larry, why should this be a question of cities versus the countryside? Perhaps the big US cities should follow the lead of London and Singapore. In London, any vehicle owner wishing to use roads in the central area pays £10 a day(around $16)for the privilege, whilst in Singapore, there is a road charging system to automatically charge for using main roads in the central areas at busy times. As London has a great deal of mass transit capacity at fairly reasonable cost, many people choose to leave their vehicles at home when they go to London.
A similar system adopted in New York, Chicago, LA etc. could form the basis of a subsidy to public transport giving drivers the choice to leave their vehicles at home & improving urban air quality at the same time.
This sort of urban cross subsidy would not have any effect on rural dwellers, and could be of substantial benefit to those urban dwellers who can’t drive, prefer not to, or are unable to do so.
Gary, you are adding insult to injury when you say that the rural folk should pay to drive on the roads that they paid for with their tax dollars. They pay the taxes continually but use the roads hardly at all. This is disproportionate taxation.
In China that is not a problem. The peasant in the countryside has no voice. Wonderful systems can be created in an atmosphere where personal liberty is trampled under the wheels of progress.
The cities should tax themselves alone and then the surcharge for the use of the roads by anyone would be acceptable to all.
With a high enough surcharge maybe the funds for mass transit would be available and could be built over the top of existing right-of-way corridors.
Larry, I don’t think you read what I said. I agree with you. The charges I refer to only apply to the central areas of the biggest cities where congestion and pollution are a major problem. Rural areas are unlikely to ever have a god public transport network as there is simply not the population density to support them.
City dwellers in London and Singapore have a choice between paying extra to use the most congested city roads, or using the excellent public transport which is available in such areas – this being a city tax for using the city roads which redistributes the money within the city to expand availability of and reduce the cost to the user of public transport.
Apart from rare occasions, rural dwellers usually stay out of the centres of big cities, and would most likely use public transport when they visit anyway.
Road charging would not apply to rural roads, so rural people would see no difference to their standard of living, and would probably on balance benefit from improved and cheaper public transport on the rare occasions when they visit the city.
As for you implication that these systems trample underfoot the rights of the minority of people choosing to live in the countryside, or are a feature of dictatorships, this is just ridiculous. Do you suppose that the UK is an authoritarian state which imposes unpopular measures over the objections of the majority?
We definitely are not commuicating about the fairness issue regarding inner city road policy.
You are ignoring the massive federal subsidies that these projects have and will continue to get. These capital costs are paid by everyone through taxation. The benefit is primarily for the city dwellers. A country bumpkin who goes to the city but rarely, ends up paying again through tolls for something that he built but hardly uses.
Look at the billion dollar subway station in NYC that was built after 9-11 but was demolished by the Sandy flood surge. If it will be rebuilt it will be with additional federal money. Remember that this is on/under land that a country boy would never be able to build on if it was in a flood plain on his own property in any state of the union.
The cards are stacked against the country folk when it comes to taxation.
Cities receive several times over in benefit from the federal government compared to the taxes they pay. In Wisconsin we receive a small fraction of payback for infrastructure and other aid compared to the dollars sent to Washington. Most of Wisconsin’s share of federal aid goes right into the black hole called Milwaukee County.
Something is wrong when population grows so dense that the economic zone is no longer self sufficient.
My reality with public transit and my commute.
My commute from my house in Roslyn, PA to my job in Downingtown, PA was easier completed by car than train. The train does go from Roslyn to Downingtown but the problem is that the rail system in Philadelphia is designed like spokes of a wheel. Both of these places are suburban places so to make the trip you have to go from Roslyn to the center of the city and back out to Downingtown. If there was a rail line that did a circle around the city and was more direct this might have been more feasible. I have done this trip a couple of times.
The details for a round trip:
By rail ½ hour walk at each end for 2 total hours walking time.
3:20 of rail travel time.
$25.50 in fares.
By car 1:40 round trip in normal traffic 72.4 miles
$6.64 in tolls
3 gallons of gas @ $3.65/gallon is $10.95.
As you can see, clearly less expensive to drive from every aspect except the environment.
As to the tax statement, I have gathered together this blurb because of all the talk about the “rich paying their fair share” and people asking what “fair” is. My figures are the most forgiving I could find out of several sources I researched. Most of the numbers I found were more in line with what Craig found. My response has been as follows.
The top 20% “The wealthy” (66M) own 85% of the country’s wealth ($48.79T) and have seen a nearly 300% increase in their income in the last 30 years (since Reagan started the “trickle down” experiment). The bottom 80% (264M) own only 15% of the country’s wealth ($8.61T) and have seen only a 12% increase in their income in the last 30 years. Perhaps fair would be paying the percentage of the budget equal to the percentage of national wealth you own. For example, 2011 budget about $3.6T. Top 20% pays 85% or $3.06T and the bottom 80% pay $540B.
When the wealthy get tired of paying so much of the taxes they will stop sending jobs overseas and make good paying jobs here in America for real Americans so they can all help with the taxes as it used to be in the past when wealth was more distributed. Until then I will assume they like it this way since they spend so much effort and money trying to keep it this way. Don’t ask me to feel sorry for them…
As to taxing the polluters, I can only agree in the strongest possible terms. They will complain they should be able to dump exhaust into our air but I bet they would complain even more strongly if I were to pee into their water well. Both are forms of pollution that alter someone’s quality of life besides the polluter.
I fully support mass transit within an urban area — subways, etc. What I don’t support is intercity public transportation like the California high speed rail boondoggle. This project will take years to complete, follow a politically determined route where big shot politicians will ensure the transit stops are in their districts and it will cost so much money you could probably buy a Mercedes for each California commuter with all that loot.
Here’s a suggestion for getting from LA to SF fast if you don’t want to fly: How about using high speed ferries like they use in Europe and Japan and power them with nuclear engines? They go about 50 mph top speed so you could do LA to SF in about 6 hours — about the same time as high speed rail after all the stops. As a side note, the navy just retired the aircraft carrier Enterprise after 50 years of use. It was powered all that time by 8 nuclear reactors.
As for all the wealth distribution arguments floating around, the wealthy don’t need all their money at once so they can mitigate the effects of inflation through their investments. The devaluation of middle class wealth and purchasing power probably has more to do with the Chinese hollowing out the manufacturing sector and the reckless spending habits of the Fed and Congress than big bad rich folks gobbling up our money.