Photo Credit: Jason Doss, CC BY 2.0
My latest piece is now online at City Journal. It’s a recap of the Indianapolis BRT and Columbus free downtown transit success, as well as a look at Kansas City’s contemplation of free transit citywide. Thanks to a commenter here who originally alerted me to KC’s plans. Here’s an excerpt:
Kansas City is considering the complete elimination of transit fares. In major cities, fares commonly pay for a substantial amount of the overall cost of service operations, and trains and buses are often overcrowded. In Kansas City, though, fares cover only a fraction of costs—about 12 percent—and transit remains underutilized. If it goes forward with the plan, Kansas City would become the first major city to go entirely fare-less—building on the success already enjoyed by the city’s free streetcars. Urbanists have turned against streetcars because they’re slow and expensive, and often plagued by operational problems and lagging ridership. In Kansas City, though, streetcar ridership has exceeded expectations; once forecasted to run 2,700 daily rides, the streetcars now carry over 5,700, adding up to 2 million annually. Again, free ridership likely played a huge role in that success.
Click through to read the whole thing.
It’s long been a victory for everything auto-related that for ages it’s been assumed that driving on roads should be toll-free (for the most part), and that anything public transit should pay for itself through fares. It seems like a lot of people — and even leaders in car-centered cities like Indianapolis, Columbus and Kansas City (the latter of which, I believe, has more expressway miles than any U.S. metro area) — have figured out that public transit is cheaper and could be easier for everyone than buying cars and maintaining roads, and be better for the local economy and certainly the environment.
One wild card in selling public transit is the rapidly growing senior population. On the one hand, public transit would be a boon for seniors, who could have viable transportation options if driving proves to be difficult. On the other hand, we’ve all had aging relatives who refuse to give up their house or car despite all evidence to the contrary that they can no longer handle it. I wonder how you would sell public transit to a Boomer population used to equating their cars with freedom without the message: “Public transit — for when you’re on the decline.” (This is a bit on my mind because my widowed mother lives in a so-called active senior-living community in farthest-flung reach of the Indianapolis suburb Fishers with no non-car transportation options, not even a bus or shuttle paid for through their HOA fees.)
This is possible in metros with broad-based economic growth. The cost can be shared across the metro and it’s not seen as competition for development in suburban areas or for roads. In metros with little growth, streetcars are a useful symbol of the city center that suburban interests are trying to isolate themselves from and scapegoat for all their metros problems.
The original plans for the Red Line were to go beyond Marion County and into the suburban counties, but those counties haven’t put a funding referendum on the ballot. And I doubt it would pass. Not at this point, anyway. Hamilton County, for example, seems to have a limitless budget for building new roads, but public transit is seen as, shall we say, not for their population.
I believe future referendums would be by township in the other counties. The current leadership in Carmel would definitely support transit. Whether that will be the case when extension to Hamilton County is feasible is another question. I believe the Red Line extensions north and south to the county lines are the last BRT work scheduled to be done – 5 or 6 years out.
Has Columbus’ C-Pass had any noticeable impact on traffic congestion? There are many people who hate the idea of denser housing and employment centers in Raleigh, citing increased traffic as their main concern. The voting population of the city also seems to be skeptical of funding improvements in mass transit. I am wondering if some combination of BRT and no fares could actually decrease traffic congestion?
In Columbus it’s hard to tell because there are a couple of major downtown interstate construction projects underway.
So even when they’re done it will be impossible to tell whether the highway redesign/expansions or any increased transit ridership led to the reduced congestion.
Hi a bit late to the commenting, but I can definitely say the bus system is much more crowded than it used to be. They added a trip on the express I ride because it got so crowded it was standing room only.
I also STOPPED riding the express for a while when they started C-Pass, because my schedule was variable for a while. Only rode it occasionally. When I saw a C-Pass person and told them that, they said “GOOD! That’s part of what we anticipated-not everyone can ride every day, but if you can once in a while, that helps too.” Hadn’t thought of it that way. Ease of execution with the C-Pass makes the occasional rider more likely to use it.
There are frequently construction projects on the downtown innerbelt in Columbus. I’d be surprised if the current projects were so exceptionally disruptive that they spiked transit usage, especially from highway commuters (who are presumably more likely to be coming from farther away and less likely to take transit).
There are frequently construction projects on the downtown innerbelt in Columbus. I’d be surprised if the current projects were so exceptionally disruptive that they spiked transit usage, especially from highway commuters (who are presumably more likely to be coming from farther away and less likely to take transit).
It’s likely that Uber and Lyft will go poof by 2025 and we’ll be back to traditional cabs. Public transportation will enjoy a bit of a ridership bump, especially at night and on weekends. The number of low-wage workers now using ride share to go home from odd-hour shifts is enormous, and they are often spending more than an hour’s wage to do so.
What will hasten the downfall of Uber/Lyft – the drying up of investors who are willing to take losses or incremental steps toward unionization/”employee-ization” of drivers (see recent events in CA)?
I think both. Aren’t the losses getting worse over time? I guess they are banking on fully automated vehicles, but that will probably still taje a while even with the vast capital being dumped into the research. Isn’t the reality they are a bit of irrational exuberance?. Not everything is so easily “disrupted,” and the taxi industry, despite its manifest shortcomings, represented a very rational allocation of resources at a living wage.