How we can fund resilient public transit during a pandemic
Demand for transportation across all modes has plummeted since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. As the unemployment rate continues to surge, and as many of the still-employed are adjusting to required work-from-home arrangements, public transit ridership has collapsed. Yet millions of “essential workers” still commute to work every day, and many of them continue to rely on public transit for their commutes. Essential workers who use transit are disproportionately low-income and disproportionately Black or Brown — the same communities most likely to be killed by the novel coronavirus.
There should be a silver lining here. Before the pandemic, buses such as Metro’s Rapid 720 in Los Angeles amassed huge crowds — causing long and uncomfortable trips as riders shuffled in and out of standing-room-only vehicles at each stop. As crowded, confined spaces are a main way to spread COVID-19, the mass exodus of public transit riders should allow the remaining essential riders to socially distance as they ride past empty stops and sparse traffic.
Sadly, there is no silver lining — transit remains crowded throughout the country. New York City, in many ways the epicenter of the US’s coronavirus outbreak, faced crowds on its trains and buses near the peak of its initial outbreak. Even less-crowded buses carry risks via frequently-touched surfaces and choke-points at vehicle entrances. Those entrances create risks for transit riders and transit operators, most of whom are people of color. By mid-April, nearly 100 transit workers across the country had died from COVID-19.
Some agencies have responded by allowing rear-door boarding on buses to keep riders and operators separated as much as possible. However, along with obstacles to riders with disabilities, rear-door boarding causes confusion around fare payment, as fareboxes are usually positioned next to the driver. Some agencies have explicitly suspended transit fares, but that creates its own challenges, as transit agencies across the nation rely on fares for as much as 65% of operating expenses. The lost fare revenue, combined with increased operating costs and declining sales tax revenue associated with COVID-19, could leave transit agencies $40 billion short in 2020 alone.
What can we do about this transit funding crisis? The federal government provided agencies with $25 billion in emergency transit funding in the CARES Act, and the House approved an additional $15.75 billion for transit operations in the recently passed HEROES Act. However, New York City’s MTA and other agencies may need $32 billion in additional emergency funds through 2021. Without strong federal support, agencies nationwide will continue cutting service, worsening overcrowding and continuing the downward spiral of ridership and revenue losses, and service deterioration, which was already affecting transit riders before the pandemic.
Our transit systems, dependent on unpayable fares and evaporating tax revenues, thus force many of our most vulnerable neighbors to risk their lives sit to get to their jobs — jobs on which our economy and society depend. Effective and popular social programs like unemployment insurance are counter-cyclical, in that they help the most vulnerable during economic downturns, stimulating the economy more broadly. Transit fares and sales tax revenues function in the opposite way — with downturns resulting in worse service and, in the current crisis, life-threatening crowds for those without any other transportation options. We may not have a clear path out of this health crisis, but we can bolster transit systems now and prepare them for the next one — by fighting for more stable and equitable funding sources for transit.
Even if the US mirrors China’s surge in car sales, and makes temporary “slow streets” for active transportation permanent, we will still need to improve public transit. Transit is not only essential for many communities today — it is essential in the fight for climate justice. Rather than relying on revenue that disappears during a pandemic, public transit needs funding that would enable agencies to actually increase service to maintain social distancing and reduce the burden on transit operators and other essential workers.
Although states and local governments are facing funding shortfalls of their own, they are able to use various tools to raise additional money for transit. California already uses cap-and-trade proceeds to assist local transit agencies, and cities are increasingly interested in using tax-increment financing tools such as enhanced infrastructure finance districts (EIFDs) to fund transit and related infrastructure. Yet states like California could obtain far more funding for transit by repealing policies like Prop 13, which disproportionately benefits wealthy property owners.
Innovative and expanded user fees for other modes could also raise money for transit. While most transit agencies in the US have only recently explored suspending fares, fares have been suspended on most public freeways for decades, despite their enormous economic, social, and environmental costs. The closest we have to an automobile user fee is the gasoline tax, but the expanded adoption of electric vehicles has caused tax revenues to decline in many states. Adopting a vehicle-miles traveled (VMT) fee, or implementing congestion pricing as seen in London or Stockholm, might discourage driving while providing funding for transit and other modes. Of course, these policies must be strategically implemented so that they do not disproportionately impact low-income drivers in the process.
States, cities, and transit agencies could also reallocate funds from other departments to pay for better transit service. Despite well-publicized inmate releases due to COVID-19 concerns, incarceration and law enforcement constitute massive portions of state and local government budgets to this day. California’s May 2020 budget revision, which includes massive cuts to Environmental Protection, Business, Consumer Services, and Housing, maintains 99.3% of the previous budget’s spending on Corrections and Rehabilitation. At the local level, cities such as Oakland spend up to 41% of general fund expenditures on law enforcement, limiting funds available for transit-supportive infrastructure such as dedicated bus lanes and improved sidewalks.
Whatever mechanisms we use to finance the transit systems of the future, we must ensure that those with the financial resources bear the burden of paying for them. It is no surprise that policies like congestion pricing are controversial in a country where 59% of adults are living paycheck to paycheck, while CEO compensation has grown by nearly 1,000% since 1978. Therefore, as state and local governments continue to explore enhanced property taxes and user fees, advocates and policymakers must also look to income tax increases and wealth taxes as potential transit funding mechanisms, perhaps as part of a larger infrastructure bill. These funding sources could even enable a shift to fare-free transit across the US, providing direct financial relief for millions of transit riders. It will not be easy to pass these policies, nor will it be straightforward to implement them, but a stable and progressive transit funding strategy can bring the US closer to transportation equity than ever before. The lives and livelihoods of our essential workers — and in turn, all of us — may depend on it.
