Here's a short snippet from an article I read yesterday. Evidently, US Census data suggests that spending on mass transit programs tends to benefit a small minority of citizens that---on the whole---overwhelmingly belong to the middle and upper-middle classes. Ironically, these programs are funded by taxes that tend to be born by everyone including the working poor.
Two pertinent segments from the article appear below:
Despite the billions in federal and state taxpayer dollars poured into mass transit programs, only 6,908,323 working Americans take advantage of the subsidized service, according to US Census Bureau data released yesterday. The agency's American Community Survey, a questionnaire mailed to three million households, found that 121,248,284 workers over the age of 16 regularly commuted to work by personal automobile or carpool last year. Despite the comparatively small number served by buses, subways and rail, the Obama Administration has made expanding mass transit a top priority.
The census survey also showed that greater numbers of the working poor used cars and carpools to get to work than transit. A total of 17 percent of transit users reported incomes over $75,000 per year in income while only 10.6 percent fell below the poverty line.
What's significant about this? As I see it, mass transit programs are political darlings, the kind of things that every politician (regardless of party) would like to claim as her own. Usually, the program is promoted as a sympathetic, far-sighted, socially responsible act. These numbers seem to suggest otherwise.
All of this begs the question: if these programs don't help the people they are intended to help, why on earth does Ray LaHood seem so intent on expanding their impact? Or, perhaps in more direct terms: if we insist on mass transit, why not ask those who use it to pay for it?
Thanks to The Newspaper.com for the lead (http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/29/2944.asp).
That's interesting. But I wonder, is it just the mass transit from suburbs into the city? Maybe like the one in SLC? Are they proposing one where you live? Because living in Philly, the mass transit (buses, subway, trolley and train) is, most definitely, used by the lower income/poor; seemingly, the majority of the riders would fit into that category. But then again, I guess in relation to the country as a whole, that would be the minority. Very interesting. Especially now that we live in an urban area and rely on the train every day.
ReplyDeleteAnd, the 17% to 10.6% breakdown of over $75,000 to below poverty seems a pretty even split... and does that mean the 70% of the riders fall in between those two?
I always thought that mass transit DID cater to the working poor rather than the upper middle class. Interesting to consider that split - probably those without personal vehicles on the lower end and professional commuters on the high end? Middle class moms like me don't often consider mass transit practical. Grocery shopping with kids on a bus? No thanks.
ReplyDeleteI see mass transit as a great answer in more compact, urban cities. But ultimately, I think that mass transit is a lousy attempt to fix a freeway problem in Seattle. Too few ways to get from point A to point B. Buses aren't going to fix that. And a limited lightrail is an expensive bandaid, as well.