Users, not taxpayers, should shoulder public transit burden
For efficient point-to-point travel, almost nothing beats the car, especially over short distances.
Public transit is nice and serves a purpose, but for the major day-to-day reason that people need transportation – getting to and from work – there isn't a bus or train in the world that will take those commuters directly from their homes to their workplaces, without stopping, at exactly the right time they need them.Aside from people who use public transit because of its environmental benefits, people who ride buses and trains generally fall into two categories. The first is people who live in heavily populated areas where costs like parking, tolls and gasoline are so high that owning and operating a car is more expensive than paying for a bus or train ticket twice a day, in addition to the headaches caused by fighting traffic in rush hour. This is why public transit use is so high among commuters in New York City (56 percent, according to the U.S. Census), San Francisco (34 percent), Boston (33 percent) and Washington, D.C. (27 percent).
The second category of people who consistently use public transit are those who are unable to afford or are physically unable to drive a car, thus making the bus or train ticket the only option. This category will exist almost anywhere in the country, regardless of population density. The Massachusetts Department of Transportation estimates roughly 10 percent of Worcester County's working population falls into this category.
This brings us to the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority and the moves it and its control board are making to deal with a projected $242-million deficit headed into fiscal 2017. The control board already is warning of difficult and unpopular decisions to come, while Transportation Secretary Stephanie Pollack said her agency and the MBTA must strike a balance of who will bear the brunt of paying for public transit: the taxpayers who never use it vs. the riders who use it every day. While both sides will be asked to contribute a portion, the question essentially boils down to how much all the businesses and people of Massachusetts must pay in order to support a transportation system used almost entirely in greater Boston.
We believe the appropriate balance is somewhere just above paying for the subsidy for the people who fall into the second category of public transit users. In order to have a truly thriving economy in Central Massachusetts, the entire working population needs to have access to transportation, and that means supporting public transit to the point where low-income and disabled workers still can get to their jobs without a car. Public transportation also serves a greater good of relieving roadway congestion and reducing the need for maintenance and upgrades to the existing roadway infrastructure, so we favor all the people and business in Massachusetts contributing toward public transit in that regard.
Ultimately, though, the burden of paying for the MBTA's deficit and funding public transit as a whole should fall on the people that use it the most. Yes, this means increased fares. Yes, this means changing the operations to eliminate routes or times that are less economical. Yes, this means hurting the most the people who will complain the loudest – at a State House less than a block away from a T station.
The argument over the proper balance between users and taxpayers comes up in nearly every public policy decision: health care, postage, police and fire services, higher education. In each case, the percentage of the service borne by the overall taxpayer is always going to be different. In thick and thin budget times, as public officials rank which services should have their budgets be paid for by the highest percentage of taxpayers dollars, we would encourage those in the State House to put public transit toward the bottom of that list.
WBJ Web Partners
Most Recent
Most Recent
0 Comments