It is an age-old issue, dating back to when Kusk the Greater complained that taxes were too high for using water from the Tigris River.
Well, that’s just a hunch; we aren’t exactly experts on Mesopotamia. But we’re pretty sure the history of civilization can be boiled down to one question: How much are we willing to personally sacrifice for the common good?
It is this question that defines many of our political debates. For example, is it worth it for the United States to spend $700 billion a year on the military? Of course not. That is an asinine amount, more than the next 10 countries combined. But what about roads and schools and police departments and parks, the kind of things that are supported by tax dollars and define the difference between civilization and philistinism? That is a good question, yet it is one for another time.
Because today we come to talk about public transit, a subject that inevitably touches upon the question regarding common good and its corollary of whether or not government should be run like a business. Businesses, you see, go out of, um, business if they spend more money than they bring in, which means that public transit would have gone the way of the horse-and-buggy about the time horses and buggies went away.
Such is the case for C-Tran, the bus service that runs through most of Clark County and makes excursions over to Portland. C-Tran, according to its 2016 financial statement, has a Farebox Recovery Ratio of 20.6 percent, which is a fancy way of saying about 80 percent of its operations are subsidized by taxpayers. In 2016, the agency saw 5.6 million boardings, a noticeable drop from 6.6 million as recently as 2012.
In this regard, C-Tran is not alone. Public transit is heavily subsidized throughout the country because, you know, charging $9 for a single bus trip probably would be bad for business. And with the economy improving and ride-sharing services booming, ridership has dropped.
For many people, the idea that public transit doesn’t pay for itself means it has little value. They argue that government should be run like a business, and that underperforming assets should be eliminated. And they suggest that there should be nothing public about public transportation; it should be privatized.
The argument about running government like a business is a silly one. Under that theory, the United States would have long ago eliminated Mississippi, Louisiana, Tennessee, Montana and Kentucky — the states most dependent upon federal aid, according to The Tax Foundation. There is more than a bit of irony in the fact that blue states subsidize red states, the places where anti-government sentiment is considered a badge of honor.
But that, too, is a discussion for another time.
Transit has benefits
Instead, allow us to focus on the issue of privatizing public transportation. According to a 2016 report from the National Bureau of Economic Research, eliminating public bus service would save governments about $5.7 billion a year. The thought is that the service could be filled by entrepreneurs such as Uber and Lyft.
Which brings us back to the original question: How much are we willing to personally sacrifice for the common good?
Privatization of public transit would not really matter to those who can afford to take an Uber ride, but it would matter a great deal to many of our neighbors. As Alana Semuels wrote for The Atlantic: “Cutting off commuting options isn’t just annoying, it keeps people stuck in their impoverished neighborhoods and prevents from getting them to the jobs they need to improve their lives. A government that can’t or won’t provide transportation may keep its residents mired in poverty.”
That pretty much defines the reason we have public transit, even if it doesn’t pay for itself. Is it worth it? I don’t know. But it’s nice to think we have become more civilized since the days of Kusk the Greater.
Morning Briefing Newsletter
Get a rundown of the latest local and regional news every Mon-Fri morning.
