Author: RAJA CHINNAKOTLA
Topic: Public Transportation
Committee: Government and Law
Committee Chair: ANDREW VANDERKOLK
Public transportation in the United States has always been fraught. Compared to other developed nations, America lags behind on most metrics of public transportation supply and demand. Yet, the perception of public transportation has seemingly worsened. Many believe that public transportation is a critical solution to climate change, as it can offset the over 10% of emissions caused by personal vehicles. However, systems face challenges such as staffing shortages, transit delays, and increased crime, leading many to question how America can improve its already failing systems.
The Impact of COVID-19 on Public Transportation
COVID-19 was a catalyst for many of the current problems in public transportation. First, the demographic of public transportation users shifted. Many workplaces, particularly office jobs, transitioned to virtual environments, leading to a decrease in ridership of 6 million people per month and contributing to an overall decline in transportation revenues.
In response, the federal government heavily subsidized transportation systems through the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021. The ARPA allocated federal funds to systems totalling $30.4 billion dollars to prevent system collapse under the economic pressures of the pandemic. Along with decreased ridership, transit systems reduced their capacities for buses, trains, and other modes of transportation. The US Bureau of Labor Statistics report on US Transit System Labor Productivity finds that between 2020 and 2022, there was a decrease of over 1.384 billion passenger miles traveled. Transit systems were running fewer routes and at a lower frequency. Post-pandemic, responses to these challenges have varied.
Funding Shortfalls and Large City Challenges
The expiration of federal funding in 2022 left many transportation agencies facing severe shortfalls. In Chicago, increased pressures with infrastructure and reduced federal funds led to a projected $550 million dollar shortfall by 2026. Contributing factors include building new projects, declining ridership, and reduced state spending. The Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) courted $1.5 billion from the Illinois state government, but political gridlock has hindered progress.
Currently, the CTA has returned to its current rail service level from the pandemic, but without the necessary financial support from the government – to hire staff, fix existing infrastructure, and build new projects – the CTA will crumble under pressure. This scenario exemplifies the broader conflict between different levels of government, which hinders adequate transportation for all. From New York to Los Angeles, large cities have faced significant impacts from reduced ridership and funding. Fortunately, other transit systems in mid-size cities around the country are flourishing.
Success Stories in Mid-Sized Cities
Cities like Richmond, VA, Tucson, AZ, and Madison, WI have avoided the steep declines experienced by larger metropolitan areas. Specifically in Richmond, post-pandemic, their transit was thriving. Since 2020, the Central Virginia Transit Authority (CVTA) found a 104% ridership increase from the pandemic. This is in stark contrast to the CTA losing 46% ridership since 2020.
The CVTA’s $750 million investment has bolstered the system. Transit systems, like the CVTA have been able to thrive because of their adaptability to severe disruptions. Similarly, Madison, WI, saw a nearly 20% ridership increase since 2020, with continued growth expected due to investments in projects like bus rapid transit. Smaller systems were less affected by office closures and remote work during the pandemic. Moreover, the smaller size of these systems allows for greater flexibility with resources. Rather than juggling through thousands of buses and routes, smaller systems can strategically cut at smaller volumes. With greater versatility, smaller systems were able to thrive under post-pandemic challenges.
Federal Policy and Public Transit’s Future
With Trump elected as president, there will also be changes to public transit. During his first administration, Trump had negative impacts on public transportation. He shifted funds from the Better Utilizing Investments to Leverage Development (BUILD) program in favor of highways and roads. While the program allocated around 70% of the funds to highways, only 11% went to public transportation. This was a significant decrease from the Obama administration. As we enter a second Trump administration, it is unlikely that he will change his position in favor of public transportation. Specifically in the NOVA area, Trump signaled to suspend funds for a new light-rail project in Baltimore. Moreover, Trump’s pick for Transportation Secretary, Sean Duffy, signals a slight change from the first Trump administration. Born in Wisconsin, Duffy, former reality star turned Congressman is a conservative Republican and FOX Business host. Compared to other people predicted to take the position, like former Uber executive Emil Michael and California representative Jeff Denham, he isn’t keen on disrupting the agency. But compared to the first administration, pick Elaine Chao, Duffy signals greater loyalty to Trump rather than institutional experience. While Duffy expressed significant disapproval of current secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg, he doesn’t show any signs of creating radical change. He might focus on fixing current infrastructure, like roads and highways rather than making public transportation his top priority. However, the new DOGE committee with Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy poses significant threats to the US federal government, since they aim at cutting 2 Trillion dollars of federal spending. Many speculate that those cuts will directly impact federal funding of the transportation systems across the board. Nonetheless, public transit won’t have increased federal support compared to the Biden Administration.
Potential Solutions for Sustainable Public Transit
Since public transportation around US cities will become less reliant on federal funds, there needs to be localized solutions to ensure that those systems thrive. One proposed solution is congestion pricing, which imposes surcharges on vehicles entering high-traffic areas, such as downtowns. The idea aims to increase revenue streams for transportation while reducing overall car congestion. A headlining proposal for congestion pricing recently hit a hard stop in New York. Kathy Hochul, the current governor of New York, initially rejected a proposal for congestion pricing of $15 dollars per entry. Though she has about-faced and now supports congestion pricing, though at a reduced cost of $9 dollars.Rideshare services like Uber and Lyft would face a smaller surcharge of $2.75 per ride. However, there has been significant pushback from unions to the proposal, who argue that congestion pricing is simply another hidden tax that would disproportionately impact low-income workers who drive into the surcharge areas for work. While congestion pricing remains contentious, it could provide a significant revenue stream without heavily burdening public transit users. Similar policies are already successful in European cities like London and Paris, proving that the idea is viable.
Another potential solution is raising ticket prices. Critics argue that increasing fares could unfairly affect those that use public transport the most, a bloc that includes low-income and marginalized groups. Increasing prices would not be beneficial on its own, it should be coupled with a new pricing scheme. To mitigate this, fare increases could be paired with pricing caps, such as the Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s (MTA) OMNY system, which limits charges to 12 swipes per week. In other words, the 13th swipe and up are available at no additional cost. With an increase in pricing, systems should institute a pricing policy where there is a cap on charges per week or month. This raises revenues from all tickets while rewarding those who use the systems often. By creating more localized policies that solve problems with funding, transportation systems can adequately address the needs of their riders while improving their budget problems.
Along with greater revenue increases, public transportation systems should prioritize smaller-scale investments compared to expensive infrastructure. Currently, most American cities operate exclusively bus routes with limited train services. Underground metros are the exception with systems since they are expensive to build. For instance, the MTA extension of the Purple Line cost $4 billion dollars per mile. For instance, the MTA’s Purple Line extension cost $4 billion per mile, highlighting the financial strain of large-scale projects. With smaller systems strapped for cash, expanding current services and increasing bus routes is more functional and cost effective as opposed to creating new train routes that would break the bank. Smaller, incremental improvements can better address budget constraints while meeting riders’ needs.
The future of public transportation in the US hinges on effective collaboration between municipal, state, and federal authorities. While a new Trump administration may not significantly harm systems, other federal initiatives could threaten funding. Nonetheless, by adopting successful strategies from cities like Richmond and Madison, there is hope that the US can move toward a more robust and equitable public transportation network, following the examples set by Europe and Asia.