Is good public transit a civil rights issue?

goodnightjohnwayne wrote:I can state with great certainty that I can get in my powerful automobile and easily drive to a train station or airport - or I can just keep on going on a system of free interstate highways.

Couldn't let this howler go by without a reply. While I am generally aligned with your points of view on enumerated rights, freedom, the market, and so forth, this is just nonsense.

In no way are those interstate highways "free". American taxpayers pay billions of dollars a year for their maintenance and upkeep. The fact that the average driver doesn't see that as a direct cost is not really important, except that it makes less thoughtful people believe that they haven't paid for that asphalt - that it is, in effect, "free". They have paid, many times over. There are also, in urban areas, very easily computed congestion costs that are directly related to our generally auto-centric culture. Note - I agree that we should be free to choose our mode; in that regard, I think transit needs to do a much better job in competing for trips than it does today. But even a free market guy like me sees that there's nothing "free" about sitting in a traffic jam on a taxpayer-subsidized road with no other choices.

goodnightjohnwayne wrote: As far as transportation policy, it can be argued that some of the biggest and most embarassing disasters are associated with public transportation. Show me a road that's a bigger boondoggle that the infamous Detroit People Mover?

Not to resurrect this, but I'm surprised nobody else mentioned the Big Dig.

neroden wrote:

goodnightjohnwayne wrote: As far as transportation policy, it can be argued that some of the biggest and most embarassing disasters are associated with public transportation. Show me a road that's a bigger boondoggle that the infamous Detroit People Mover?

Not to resurrect this, but I'm surprised nobody else mentioned the Big Dig.

Probably because it has nothing to do with the original topic.

Whether or not we consider good public transportation ( however we define that) a civil rights issue ( and by that I assume that we mean that those who do not have good public transportation are being discriminated against somehow), I do believe that, in today's world, public transportation has taken on the characteristics of a public utility, much the same as electric power, home heating, and telephone service. Under this definition it can be asserted ( though some will disagree) that it must be provided regardless of whether or not it is cost effective to do so in all circumstances. I think this is the issue over which the legitimate debate will take place.

walt wrote:Whether or not we consider good public transportation ( however we define that) a civil rights issue ( and by that I assume that we mean that those who do not have good public transportation are being discriminated against somehow), I do believe that, in today's world, public transportation has taken on the characteristics of a public utility, much the same as electric power, home heating, and telephone service. Under this definition it can be asserted ( though some will disagree) that it must be provided regardless of whether or not it is cost effective to do so in all circumstances. I think this is the issue over which the legitimate debate will take place.

Oh really? So if I build a cabin in the woods mile and mile away from the nearest power line, I don't have to pay to bring the lines to my cabin? Actually, that's precisely what homeowners have to do.

Nobody is guaranteed access to power lines, gas lines, or very old fashioned landline telephone service.

It's time to state that public transit is not a "civil right" and anyone that makes such a statement doesn't understand the definition of the term "civil right."

goodnightjohnwayne wrote:
Nobody is guaranteed access to power lines, gas lines, or very old fashioned landline telephone service.

It's time to state that public transit is not a "civil right" and anyone that makes such a statement doesn't understand the definition of the term "civil right."

Actually I agree-- that was my point. Good public transit is more in the nature of a public utility, than a "civil right" and while there are those who will assert that public utilities provide a service that must be provided regardless of cost, there are those who, as you do, strongly disagree, and this is where the debate lies--- whether or not that service must be provided at all costs--- not over the issue of whether some form of discrimination exists where good public transit does not-- which would be the civil rights argument..

walt wrote:

goodnightjohnwayne wrote:
Nobody is guaranteed access to power lines, gas lines, or very old fashioned landline telephone service.

It's time to state that public transit is not a "civil right" and anyone that makes such a statement doesn't understand the definition of the term "civil right."

Actually I agree-- that was my point. Good public transit is more in the nature of a public utility, than a "civil right" and while there are those who will assert that public utilities provide a service that must be provided regardless of cost, there are those who, as you do, strongly disagree, and this is where the debate lies--- whether or not that service must be provided at all costs--- not over the issue of whether some form of discrimination exists where good public transit does not-- which would be the civil rights argument..

Since when do "public utilities provide a service that must be provided regardless of cost?"

goodnightjohnwayne wrote:Since when do "public utilities provide a service that must be provided regardless of cost?"

I don't assert that they do--- merely that there are those who assert that they do-----, but that even for those who make the assertion, it is not a civil rights issue ( which was the original question).

Moderator's Note: fixed quotation, 2/17/2011, 4:19 pm CST

I do believe that, in today's world, public transportation has taken on the characteristics of a public utility, much the same as electric power, home heating, and telephone service.

Utilities that operate pursuant to a franchise agreement or by regulation are generally required to provide service to any person seeking service within the defined service area without discrimination; if a line does not exist to a particular property, then yes - the property owner must pay for a line extension. But once that line extension is built, that customer pays the same rates as if they lived right next door to the power plant and substation. The utility must set the rates to cover the cost of all lines, so in a sense rural customers do receive some subsidies that urban customers must pay higher rates for.

That said, transit systems are going to have similar challenges - they operate in a defined area in which the agency has the right to assess taxes on property owners, residents and businesses. Therefore, they have an obligation to serve every citizen within that defined service area - even if it means running some bus route that has just a handful of riders on it.

Unlike an electric utility, the transit system could simply remove an underserved area from its district - thus giving up the right to collect taxes, but also relinquishing the responsibility to provide a minimum level of service. (Utilities generally can't abandon service, but if they find a buyer for an area they can sell or trade service areas. In some rural areas there might be a rural electric co-op that is established and willing to add to their service area, and in general customers will go for this since the co-ops are non-profit and locally controlled...albeit, with a little political side action.)

Where I hold an objection to is when transit agencies unfairly add a lot of service in an area that doesn't "need" it, and does so at high cost, requiring subsidies from other areas who end up seeing their service cut to pay for the enhanced service.

It is perceived by many as an 'entitlement' much like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps, Welfare, Public sector pensions, free 'no copay' medical care, public housing, free child care, free job training, free education, right turn on red light, driving a car with no insurance or valid license, and bad breath or flatulence in public elevators, etc.

Look into the 9th amendment of the us constitution.

HBLR wrote:Look into the 9th amendment of the us constitution.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Also, the Tenth Amendment may apply as well:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

HBLR wrote:Look into the 9th amendment of the us constitution.

OK, I looked. What does this have to do with a "right" to good public transit?

It means just because it isn't specified in a law, doesnt mean
It isn't a right. Therefore one could argue the quality of life things such as Internet, transit, education, health care etc are rights in theory if not in law.

Those crazy founding fathers really knew what they were doing.

The premise of this post is that good public transit could be a public right. The passage from the 9th Amendment, among other Constitutional segments, does reflect that.

Moderator's Note: And now that we've reminded ourselves that it could be a public right, let's concentrate on why it is or is not, or should or should not be.