The year wouldn't be complete without another funding crisis
riddling the mass transit agencies in Illinois.
It has been something of a routine. The Chicago Transit
Authority, along with the suburban authorities Pace and Metra, cry poor and
petition the state's General Assembly for more operating funds. A "Doomsday
Scenario" is presented, and constituents get the picture. If the General
Assembly doesn't act fast and do something, service on the most popular bus and
train lines will be cut.
Each time, the General Assembly comes through. Sometimes,
these last second funding measures have come with strings. A couple years ago,
then-Gov. Rod Blagojevich insisted that he would not sign a bill that didn't include a
provision that allowed all senior citizens to ride the transit agencies for
free. Thus, everyone 65 or older can ride the CTA, Metra or Pace for free -
all at the expense of the agencies.
This year, the
CTA has already begun to talk about needing to close a $178 million budget gap.
Illinois isn't the only state where mass transit is starved for cash. Metro St.
Louis, for example, cut its service and parked half of its fleet as operating
expenses were just too high.
Even as the Stimulus package threw billions in the way of
capital expenditures, mass transit in the United States struggles to keep the
lights on.
The answer politicians have turned to seems simple: more
money. Increasing funding to the municipal transit agencies makes the problems
go away temporarily. But they do not solve the underlying problem.
Mass transit does not pay for itself. It needs to, or it at
least needs to pay a larger share of its expenses.
Full disclosure: I believe mass transit can be valuable to
just about any community. Of course, my opinion might be colored by the fact
that my company sells supplies to mass transits across the country. But it has its benefits.
-
Mass transit - at least in theory - should be
less expensive per passenger mile than private travel.
-
Mass transit - at least in theory - could reduce
the wear and tear on our roads.
-
Mass transit - at least in theory - could be a
service that attracts a large market.
Once upon a time, most of the mass transits were privately
owned and operated. Often different companies would handle different routes. In
some areas, competing companies would service the same routes. In the 1960s,
the Surface Transportation Act provided federal funding for public mass
transits and the cities and states began taking over these companies. Most of
these companies were struggling when the governments took them over, but the
private sector had managed to build rail lines and operate transit systems
profitably for decades.
These days, transit is looked upon one of two ways. To some,
it is a public good, like a roadway or a sewer system. Taxpayers fund mass
transit because its constant operation is vital to the health of a city.
Discontinue funding your local transit agency, the theory goes, and it will
cease service. As a result, traffic increases, air quality declines, and gas
prices soar.
To others, it is a form of aid to the young, the elderly and
the indigent. A route that connects a poor area to the city cannot be cut, even
if it only serves a dozen or so people a day. The paratransit and dial-a-ride
services are part of the welfare system, the argument goes.
These both might be true. However, what is ignored is that
transit, like everything else, is a scarce resource. I am reminded of a blog
posting from a mass transit expert this past spring. In it, an anonymous
transit professional argues against transit agencies' attempts to increase
ridership by going after what he calls "discretionary" riders:
Promoting transit for discretionary riders seems to be a no-brainer,
whether for commuting or environmental reasons. In fact, what is the point of
promoting transit to the choir, the transit dependent? However, every additional rider is an additional
expense. We are not a for-profit industry. We would basically save the
community money by closing shop, but of course, we have a political mandate to
provide transit to those who cannot drive. So putting more discretionary riders
on transit does two things. First, it adds cost. With a 20% farebox recovery
ratio, that means for every 1 discretionary ride, the rider pays 20% and the
community must come up with 80% of the cost.
That's right. Every rider costs more. If this professional's
estimate of a 20 percent farebox recovery ratio is correct, a $1 bus fare
actually costs the agency $5. His answer is to allow transit to continue to be
a dirty, unattractive alternative reserved for the poor. He also might have some flawed math, as the
farebox-recovery ratio might change as ridership increases. Even so, increased
ridership has been met with increased budget shortfalls.
Maybe it's time to make mass transit a private enterprise
again. If it's a public good, state governments can contract private transit
companies to serve certain areas to reduce congestion. If it's a form of
welfare, the state governments can devise a way to pay for the poor's use of
mass transit.
Either way, it's time to stop another season of transit
funding crises.
T. J. Brown's Bio
T.J. Brown is a small business executive by day and a freelance writer by night. He earned a Bachelor's of Arts in Journalism at Indiana University and an MBA from Loyola University Chicago. He lives in Northbrook, Ill. and can be reached at comments@tjbrown.com.
Posted
10-09-2009 12:01 AM
Link to this post: