Matthew Yglesias writes:
One objection you often hear to pro-transit, pro-walking, anti-driving measures is a social justice argument that these measures will hit the poor hardest. In fact, as this Kevin Drum post makes clear poor people do relatively little driving. They differ from middle class and wealthy people in that utility bills take up a very large proportion of their income.
It’s true that poor people, on average, drive less than rich people. But what matters isn’t the absolute level of fuel usage, but how big a chunk of one’s income is taken up by fuel usage. According to the data in Kevin Drum’s post, folks in the bottom fifth of income in the US spend 10% of their income on gasolene, and about 12% on utility bills. In contrast, the richest fifth of people spend about 4% of their income on gasolene, and about 3% on utility bills.
So contrary to Yglesias’ claim, any policy that increases the cost of driving will definitely hit the poor harder than the rich. This should be no surprise, since virtually any economic hardship one can imagine hits the poor harder than the rich. This is why it’s helpful to be rich.
This doesn’t mean that we should oppose “pro-transit, pro-walking, anti-driving measures” as a matter of social justice. Avoiding those policies won’t prevent high gas prices, which are much more painful to the poor than the rich; and in the long run, doing nothing to transition away from a gas-based economy and infrastructure will be worse for the poorest 20% than the alternatives. What we should be doing is trying to change to more sustainable energy use, while simultaniously pursuing policies to reduce and mitigate poverty.
From Kevin Drum’s post:
…low-income houses spend 22% of their income on energy, while high-income households spend only 4% of their income on energy. If you raise the cost of energy, you hurt the poor far, far more than the better off.
Two things are worth noting. First, utility costs are a bigger problem than gasoline. On a percentage basis, the poor pay 7x as much for utilities as the well off, while they pay only 4x as much for gasoline.
I agree with most of Kevin’s post, but he’s mistaken to use “how much more do the poor pay compared to the rich” as his measurement of which is “a bigger problem.” If our concern is hardship, what matters is how big a percentage of one’s income is being spent — not how that percentage compares to what the rich spend. The bottom fifth of earners in the US are spending 10% of income on gas and 12% on utilities; for those folks the two problems are just about equal in size.
The problem is that those don’t really get put together as a package. “In the long run” doesn’t mean squat to a poor person who has to drive to work tomorrow.
Transit is a good thing, but somehow doesn’t end up being a measure that helps the poor much. Look at the efficiency and safety of the different bus lines that run through Portland–do you think the folks taking the Hawthorne bus would put up for a second with the service delays that hurt the #4 line? But when I was living up your way, there was practically a Patchouli Rebellion when they suggested making rush-hour runs on the Hawthorne line two minutes farther apart.
You say “transit… doesn’t… help the poor much.” But when I was living on the number 4 bus line and earning less than $8000 a year, the availability of the number 4 line was crucial to me; I could not have held the jobs I did without it. Period. (Nor would I have been able to eventually land my current job, which pays significantly more than $8000 a year, thank goodness).
Without the number 4, my choice would have been to live near downtown — which I couldn’t have afforded — or to work near my affordable North Portland rental, which would have cut down my job prospects enormously. So in fact, the number 4 line — flawed as it is –helped me a hell of a lot. And I don’t think my example is unusual.
The number 4 wasn’t perfect, but it wasn’t bad, either. Except when I was commuting after 10pm or before 6am, I seldom had to wait more than 20 minutes for a bus, and it was usually quicker than that.
Now, I live on the 14 line — but I live out in felony flats, hardly a rich area of town. If the yelling of the Hawthorne crowd is what causes the 14 line to be relatively good, then all of us living out here on Foster are beneficiaries of that.
I’m not denying that wealthy areas of town get better public services. They do, because money speaks loudly in politicians’ ears. And that’s worth objecting to and fighting against.
But it’s not all or nothing; to suggest that transit doesn’t help poor people much is counter to reality as I’ve experienced it.
Better public transit would probably help us, as my brother currently does not own a vehicle nor have an operator’s license, and jobs are scarce within walking distance. But most of what I want is within my reach, walking.
The real pinch for us is that the job that pays the utility bills requires an hour’s commute, and given that he must take some very bulky tools with him, we wouldn’t even be helped by light rail. But light rail in the metro area and surrounding counties would help a lot of people, and open access up to a lot of people without adding cars on the road, and probably make it easier for a lot of people to find jobs and get to them.
But paying half your income away in fuel for the vehicle (and thank all the gods it’s summer and we’re not paying for natural gas for heating) is a really bad pinch.
But, I do think that mythago has a point. The fact is, as good as the 14 is (because of the “patchouli revolution”), only a small proportion of those living in “felony flats” really have access to the 14. The rest of the buses serving this area aren’t nearly as reliable or frequent (hell, most of the rest of the felony flats lines don’t even run on Sundays, many don’t run on Saturdays), and they sure as hell don’t have the better quality buses that run on the 14 — all of the buses that run along the 10 and 19 lines have stairs, and far too many of them have problems with their “lifts,” they are far dirtier and older and less reliable, and just plain not as nice. Because of gentrification, most of the poor people are being pushed further and further out — where there is less frequent, less reliable, and more expensive mass transit possibilities. For many of those living in the further out areas, even with the increased gas prices, the cost of taking the bus is more expensive than the cost of driving — unless you can afford a monthly bus pass (and even sometimes then), and frankly, many people can’t afford to shell out that much money at one time. And, while there has been extreme violence on the far ends of both the east and west Max lines, the vast majority of the “increased police presence” have been placed on the West side.
I certainly found public transit to be of great use when I was working for The Man on the eastern seaboard in my college-ish days. If you’re working poor, it’s a lot easier to scrounge up $10/week for a bus pass than it is to pay for a car. That seems almost axiomatic.
At the same time, we should remember to answer the question, which working poor. A 10% sales tax (say) on something to pay for transit is a great deal for the kids in Portland. It’s not so great for the large numbers of poor people who live outside the transit area, but who still have to pay the tax. The rural poor would be better served by lower car registration fees or reductions in the gas tax, than by a transit line that serves a place where they never go, because a car, or shank’s mare, are the only options they have.
This comment is specific to NY public transit, but is probably generalizable. One problem with public transit is that it still costs more for the poor than the rich, both relatively and, frequently, absolutely. A rich person can stick their credit card in a Metrocard machine and get an unlimited monthly pass and probably has a job that offers transitchecks (bascially a subsidy for public transit) . A poor person may not have that much cash on hand at one time or the ability to negotiate transitchecks and will end up paying the full $2 every time. And, of course, $2 is nothing to a middle class or wealthy person but is a substantial amount to a poor person. So…what? Sliding scale fees for transit? Some program similar to food stamps for transportation? It seems like it should be doable.
Kevin Drum’s post is consistent, as far as it goes, but you make the error of equating programs which raise the cost of driving with “pro transit, pro walking, anti-driving measures”.
Any program which raises the cost of driving is going to be pro-transit, but not all programs which are p-t, p-w, a-d raise the cost of driving. For example, putting in a new subway is certainly an anti-driving measure, as it provides people a way to get from A to B without driving. But putting in a new subway doesn’t raise the cost of driving, and doesn’t hurt the poor in the way that simply boosting energy prices does.
“What we should be doing is trying to change to more sustainable energy use, while simultaniously pursuing policies to reduce and mitigate poverty.”
I couldn’t agree with this statement more.
If I were still only making $7.50/hr, $40/month in bus fare (or $34 if I could buy four ten ride passes in advance) would be a big chunk of change.
I earn $13/hr now, but I’m off the frequent service transit route so am unable to take advantage of that option, for saving money or the environment. Even car-pooling is problematic, because of the hours I work (12:30pm – 8pm/when I’m done).
Ideally I’d work in the town I live in, and walk to work, but I haven’t been able to do that in 8 years (and earn more that $7.50/hr, that is).
If I was making anything less than $11/hr I’d be feeling the surge in food and fuel prices strongly. As it is, I’m doing ok. But I’m very, very lucky – I have a car that runs well that’s paid for and I’ve lived in the same apartment for 11 years (rent hasn’t gone up $100 since I moved in) and the heat is included.
But the people who aren’t as lucky are the one’s we’re talking about here. How do we address both more sustainable energy use and reduce and mitigate poverty?
I think part of the problem (at least in Portland) is connected to urban sprawl. Public transit can only help people until developers stop building things that cater to middle-class car commuters. I think I’m middle-class now, though I don’t own a car and have a bike, so I do a mix of MAX and bike for my commute.
The Community Cycling Center is a great idea (I can bike faster than the bus can get me places) but I am going to guess that it doesn’t have a very far reach. I’m also mad that a lot of NE Portland is unpaved or badly paved, which doesn’t help transit at all, and why don’t the trains go from Vancouver to south of Portland somewhere?!
If I didn’t work where I did, I couldn’t afford the $76 monthly pass. As it stands, I’m supposed to get reimbursed but that hasn’t happened yet.
So how do lower income folks who live in rural communities (and, more often than not, commute to work) fit into this discussion?
I live in a town of 8,000 people and a county with approx. 50,000 people. My town is surrounded by smaller towns and pockets of farmland (which get smaller all the time…but that’s another post). So it’s rural-ish. How folks in the small towns in between the “larger” towns like mine do it, I honestly don’t know. One of the reasons I’ve lived in this larger town is easy access to services, groceries, entertainment, etc. I am worried for my smaller town neighbors that have no choice but to commute, and usually more than 30 miles each way. My commute is only 14 miles round trip.
There is talk at the legislative level to step up support for public transit. But even if it was stepped up by 25% tomorrow it would still take time to plan, staff, train and advertize the new routes. And would the routes survive initial/and/or frequent low ridership? There’s a route from my town to the next closest college town that’s been on and off again for years. They keep cancelling it due to low ridership. It’s frustrating.
I don’t see any easy answers. Sprawling communities proliferated at a time when oil was as low as $10-$20 a barrel. It is currently at $143, and needless to say, we’re never going back to those halcyon days. There will, I think, be some long term re-alignment toward higher-density living. Michael Klare and Matthew Simmons wrote some excellent analysis on this topic.
Many of them may have to move to more populated areas. Others will have to make significant lifestyle adjustments to deal with infrequent and minimally available public transit. The final group will have to make other sacrifices in order to maintain their desire to have both rural living and transportation autonomy.
I do not think there is an easy solution to this. The problem is one of timing: If you want to run an effective public trans system, you need to do it so people can get to their jobs. But people work all sorts of hours, from morning shift to swing shift to 13 hour days. And jobs for low income people tend to have less flexible hours, or stranger ones.
THAT requires transportation which runs with at least reasonable frequency. Which is very very expensive to provide unless it’s fairly full up.
Moreover, the more areas it serves the slower it gets. A bus which serves many local populations (and which detours to and stops at each one in turn) will add significantly to travel time. Time is money for everyone. And for low income folks (who tend to work longer hours) it can make a huge difference.
It is an extraordinarily difficult problem to solve.
THAT requires transportation which runs with at least reasonable frequency. Which is very very expensive to provide unless it’s fairly full up.
Hence the basic problem of public transportation: you can’t have mass transit without masses to transport. I think that ultimately most people will move to more densely populated areas. I think that is happening already (based on vaguely remembered map of which parts of the US were losing, which gaining population.) As far as the people who can’t or won’t move go…well, we already subsidize farmers fairly heavily. What’s a little added fuel subsidy?
Another idea for low to moderate population density areas with moderate distances between work and home: bike paths. I realize that biking in midwinter in, say, Iowa is impractical, but if people could bike half the year, that’d cut their commuting costs in half and probably help their general health. The average person could and probably would bike up to 10 km a day if they had a safe place to do it. It’s easy, fun, and allows the same freedom as a car. Can’t carry as much stuff, but with a trailer, you can haul around an unexpectedly large amount.
It is an extraordinarily difficult problem to solve.
I agree. However, I would contend that it is a very easy problem to work on. There are a number of things that could be done, relatively simply, to improve the transportation situation and lower the fuel costs for quite a large number of people. Suggestions off of the top of my head, not all of which are going to be good or good in all situations: bus lanes, congestion pricing, car free zones in central cities, light rail, bike lanes that connect towns and connect all sections of a given city, subsidies to poorer people for the use of public transit, investment in alternate energy sources, research of alternate energy sources (wouldn’t nuclear power be great if we could figure out some way to get rid of the waste?), more subways in large/densely populated cities, heavy rail connecting cities of moderate distance (seriously, wouldn’t you rather spend 2 hours on a train between Dallas and Houston than 2 hours in an airport and 45 minutes in a plane?), collective use of resources (things as simple as having a few sets of washer/dryers per apartment complex instead of one per house can be helpful)…
In other words, just because a problem is difficult to solve, don’t give up in despair. Major progress can still be made, even if a true solution is unattainable. We have no “cure for cancer” despite decades of trying but if you get cancer you’re better off getting it now than getting it 20 years ago and the death rate from cancer is down.
If y’all will excuse the pep talk.
Pep away Dianne! Somebody’s gotta do it! It’s NOT impossible, but it is difficult. Prioritizing the PUBLIC in public transportation has always been a big question mark (for me, anyway).
Maybe now that transportation is impacting a larger part of the population there will be some pressure on legislatures and municipalities (I’m just thinking local, not national,although some national leadership would be lovely!) to do the right thing. Build those bike paths! Subsidize those low usage routes!
Meanwhile, I’ve got a question: Why is public transportation geared only to people getting to and from work? It’s the most reliable density measurement? Don’t people need transportation for shopping, to visit people, to get to doctor’s appointments, to see what’s up in another part of town? If transportation in general was only about getting to and from work we wouldn’t do anything but that – so why is public transporation got the blinders on in this particular way?
No, that’s NOT what I said. Kindly do me the credit of not assuming I’m such a fucking moron that I can’t tell when you’ve used ellipses to change the entire meaning of what I wrote.
A shift to more transit is fine when it doesn’t eliminate other options. But when those transit dollars help the better-off at the expense of the poor – say that #4 line’s service is cut way back to make sure the downtown/Hawthorne lines are frequent and timely, or to run light rail out to tourist sites — that hurts the poor.
It is too what you said. Here it is again, this time without ellipses:
There is no reasonable interpretation of that sentence which doesn’t mean that transit doesn’t help the poor much. If that’s not what you intended to say, then blame your bad writing; don’t claim I’m changing your meaning when I didn’t.
Your new statement — which is not something I, or anyone, could be expected to infer from your original statement — I agree with.
Re: what Eva said (#16): Why is public transportation geared only to people getting to and from work?
Several years back, I went to an urban planning conference that addressed this very issue. How public transportation does not work very efficiently, say, for moms having to drop off one child at the baby sitters, another at daycare, then go to work, then pick up the kids again, etc.