Subsidies to transit are always a good target for critics.  Only half informed, columnist Dennis Byrne recently attacked  them in the Chicago Tribune. He suggested that they cover half the cost of transit in the Chicago area. He proclaimed “We don’t pay half the motorists’ costs when he drives to work or goes shopping.”  and that public spending on transit is horribly misplaced.

The fact is that we subsidize both transit and auto . But those of transit are almost nothing compared to those of autos. And the resulting higher auto use generates even higher, unmeasured costs on our own pocketbooks, society and the environment.   

In an internet piece titled America's Autos On Welfare, the Sierra Club said: “....Every year those subsidies cost America billions of dollars. The exact dollar amount is difficult to calculate, but every study done shows that it is at least twice the amount motorists pay at the pump.”

Subsidies to Auto Use

Over the past thirty years at least eight studies have been made of subsidies to auto use in the U. S.  The average of the estimates of these studies is over $800 Billion annually. That is over $2,700 each year for every man, woman and child in the country.  Using Byrne’s assumptions of cost of about $3 for a transit ride and the federal estimate of 10 billion such rides per year indicates a total spent on transit each year of about $30 billion. If, as suggested by Bryne, half is paid by users, that shows a total subsidy to transit of about $15 billion a year. For every dollar to support transit we pay fifty to subsidize auto use

This largely explains the poor availability and quality of transit service which results in high unit costs and low ridership, feeding a self fulfilling prophesy and furthering the cycle of declining usage and revenues.

In recent years, where attractive, new transit service has been provided (such as Minneapolis, MN, Gresham, OR, San Diego, CA and others) new patronage has almost always far exceeded projections, often in the face of policies and practices hostile to transit use.

(These and similar data may be found at tinyurl.com/3o44w and  www.sierraclub.org/sprawl/articles/subsidies.asp.)

Mutual Benefits of Mixed Use and Transit

Transit and mixed use centers are mutually supporting and essential to each other in two ways: 

•    First, good mixed use can generate far higher levels of  transit ridership at less cost than dispersed development.
•    Second, transit improves access and permits dramatically reduced costs for access, circulation and parking in mixed use areas.

Here's how this can work:

•    Compact, intense, pedestrian friendly mixed use attracts many more people to transit than scattered, low density development, greatly increasing revenues for transit.
•    The combination of transit availability, compactness and mixed use permits people who live, work or obtain services  in mixed use areas to reduce or virtually eliminate their dependence on or ownership of cars and parking, greatly reducing their own costs and those of the public and businesses to meet these needs.
•    When people no longer need autos to live and work in mixed use areas they  may shift to transit for access, reducing the need to own, park or drive a car, further increasing support for transit.
•    As transit ridership and related revenues increase and savings result from reduced ownership, these can be not only to improve transit but to meet other needs of the individuals, businesses, institutions and public agencies involved.

The bottom line is that wise investments in transit can produce tremendous advantages to everyone involved, citizens, businesses, the public and institutions. These advantages are economic, social and environmental. And there is little doubt that they far outweigh whatever subsidies may be required to create and operate transit services and to deal with any environmental or similar problems that they may generate. Moreover, the enormous secondary benefits which transit generates through its stimulation and support of efficient mixed use are probably beyond calculation.

This contrasts strongly with subsidies to auto use which mainly initiate,  perpetuate and increase the many costs from parking, accident, environmental, policing, health and other problems that it produces. These costs fall on property owners, businesses, employees, residents, users and governmental jurisdictions, not only in areas served but of many surrounding areas as well. (Not to mention costs at the national and international level including those of climate change, air pollution, wars to protect oil sources, etc.)

Net Benefits Must Justify Support

Clearly, where public monies and other resources are being spent for any purpose, the degree to which such spending results in secondary, perpetual and growing costs must be accounted for. This is not something we have done in the decisions we have made about auto use over the last half century. In many cases, not even the costs for  maintenance and replacement of the facilities  have been included.  And we certainly haven’t recognized in any significant way the demands for secondary infrastructure, such as parking, utilities, communications and other systems, that auto induced sprawl has produced. The result is that we have created an enormous backlog of need for spending on every type of infrastructure for which no adequate financing exists.

Redirect Subsidies

We should not pursue programs which enlarge and extend this backlog.  For example, we must work hard to keep deserving proposals for infrastructure maintenance from being so loosely defined that they result in  massive pork barrel inducements to more auto use.  Rather, we should support investments that will save and enhance the values and benefits that mixed use can generate.

The first is especially true in the face of the need to dramatically reduce energy use, particularly oil, and negative impacts on the environment. It is so important that we should consider establishing a moratorium on any major programs or projects which clearly have costly and damaging secondary impacts. We should confine support to projects which help us prepare for the post carbon era.  Transit facilities and services coordinated with the creation and improvement of good mixed use environments especially should be included.

Vermont has apparently taken an important first step in this direction with its program to support downtowns throughout the State. See reports on this program here:  http:///www.knowledgeplex.org/news/688301.html

Support Must be Targeted, Comprehensive and Coordinated

If we are to make the kind of progress toward mixed use which is needed, similar and more targeted and inclusive steps should be taken at every level, federal, state and local, and should include financing and subsidies of every type: housing, industrial development, beautification, transportation, energy and more. But we should support only sound mixed use – projects or areas containing a variety of  uses and the public services and amenities, walkability and variety of activities essential to high levels of self sufficiency and convenience. Projects that are mixed use in name only, or that are not located in existing or planned mixed use areas meeting the above criteria, should  be excluded.

We need to move in these directions now!