Transit should benefit rich and poor
A successful system is one that’s better than taking a car, whether or not you can afford one.

thestar.com
Oct. 13, 2015
By Edward Keenan

It’s one of those questions we never really get around to discussing, but whose elements and assumptions are at the root of nearly every subway or bus debate: is public transit a social program we provide primarily for those who need it? Or is it an amenity (like running water or electricity) that provides a perk for the residents of boomtown?

It isn’t an either/or question, obviously, but the emphasis we place determines a lot about how we decide to spend on transit, plan transit, and provide service on transit.

Mayor John Tory emphasized the former position earlier this summer, in a letter to his fellow councillors on the budget committee, outlining the reason to invest in public transit: “It provides a means of getting around for people who can’t afford a car.”

Not only is this something people across North America know intuitively, it’s also a guiding principle. People need to get around, even poor people. It’s necessary to their lives that they be able to do so. And for many, transit is the only alternative to a looooong walk. It’s the reason we subsidize TTC fares, and the reason we run frequent service to a lot of money-losing bus routes in Scarborough and Etobicoke. There is a need, and we can fill it.

On the other hand, you have the words of Mayor Enrique Penalosa of Bogota, Colombia, who revolutionized transit there. He famously said, “A developed country is not a place where the poor have cars. It’s where the rich use public transport.”

Look at New York or London, or look at uptown Toronto: a wealthy homeowner at Yonge and Eglinton can get downtown faster and cheaper on the subway than in a car. It’s a great service to them, and one they should be glad to pay for - and they do, in their home prices. Look around Toronto and you’ll see that real estate prices on subway lines are much higher than elsewhere. They’re paying a premium for access to a premium service that makes their lives better and easier. Markham Mayor Frank Scarpitti told me a few years ago that his residents consider transit a premium service they’re willing to pay for - and that they fill up new transit commuting lines as fast as they can be built.

Of course, when they do use transit, even wealthier residents are still providing a social good. Those living on the Yonge subway line, for instance, are subsidizing less popular and affluent routes with their fares. As importantly, they are helping to alleviate congestion by not driving cars: if everyone on the Yonge subway took a car to work instead, we’d need a 26-lane highway to accommodate them. Never mind thinking about the pollution all those cars would cause. Transit makes the streets cleaner and less crowded, which is better for everyone, even those who are driving in cars.

One key thing to understand is that those riders aren’t doing that out of the goodness of their hearts, and they aren’t doing it out of desperation for alternatives. Those social goods are a byproduct of the fact that for those riders who live near subways and GO stations, transit is a convenient and cheap alternative to fighting traffic and paying for parking. A well-used transit system provides plenty of social goods, but it gets to be well-used because it’s convenient, comfortable and affordable, because it provides a better personal service than driving a personal car does. You design the service to be something rich people will choose, and success flows from there.

To an extent, at least. When you’re planning service, you can’t simply let chasing the fares of rich people be your guiding principle. You look at the poorest neighbourhoods in the city, and it’s no coincidence that they are also mostly the poorest-served by public transit. If we’re going to build new and better transit, it should go to those places where there’s a need. Otherwise you get the Union-Pearson Express: a half-billion-dollar project currently providing luxury service to fewer passengers a week than ride the Bellamy bus.

It’s what happens when you say: “Forget who needs transit most. Let’s try to design it as a premium service for those with options.” Meanwhile, out at the bus stop in Rexdale, folks are waiting, and waiting. Which is what happens when you design your transit service as something you grudgingly give to people who have no other options.

There’s a “beggars can’t be choosers” approach we often take to social programs, a sense that those without other options can make do with a service that doesn’t give people what they want, but is good enough to serve their absolute needs. You don’t get a service that’s better than a car; you get one that’s only barely better than nothing.

If you design the service right, it’s something that makes life in the city better for everyone - like the subway does downtown, except all around the city. Which actually tends to build a fast, convenient network, which makes travel to all points in the city by public transit not just possible but attractive.

So when we talk about transit, we shouldn’t think of it as one or the other: if you design service to be something better than the alternatives, then plan out that service so it’s equally available to those who need it, you get the best for everyone - and in the long term, best for the growth of the city, too.