Details

Written by: Nicholas Dagen Bloom, Hunter College

Published: 19 April 2023

 

Public transit systems face daunting challenges across the U.S., from pandemic ridership losses to traffic congestion, fare evasion and pressure to keep rides affordable. In some cities, including Boston, Kansas City and Washington, many elected officials and advocates see fare-free public transit as the solution.

Federal COVID-19 relief funds, which have subsidized transit operations across the nation at an unprecedented level since 2020, offered a natural experiment in free-fare transit. Advocates applauded these changes and are now pushing to make fare-free bus lines permanent.

But although these experiments aided low-income families and modestly boosted ridership, they also created new political and economic challenges for beleaguered transit agencies. With ridership still dramatically below pre-pandemic levels and temporary federal support expiring, transportation agencies face an economic and managerial “doom spiral.”

Free public transit that doesn’t bankrupt agencies would require a revolution in transit funding. In most regions, U.S. voters – 85% of whom commute by automobile – have resisted deep subsidies and expect fare collection to cover a portion of operating budgets. Studies also show that transit riders are likely to prefer better, low-cost service to free rides on the substandard options that exist in much of the U.S.

Why isn’t transit free?

As I recount in my new book, “The Great American Transit Disaster,” mass transit in the U.S. was an unsubsidized, privately operated service for decades prior to the 1960s and 1970s. In the 19th and early 20th centuries, prosperous city dwellers used public transit to escape from overcrowded urban neighborhoods to more spacious “streetcar suburbs.” Commuting symbolized success for families with the income to pay the daily fare.

These systems were self-financing: Transit company investors made their money in suburban real estate when rail lines opened up. They charged low fares to entice riders looking to buy land and homes. The most famous example was the Pacific Electric “red car” transit system in Los Angeles that Henry Huntingdon built to transform his vast landholdings into profitable subdivisions.

However, once streetcar suburbs were built out, these companies had no further incentive to provide excellent transit. Unhappy voters felt suckered into crummy commutes. In response, city officials retaliated against the powerful transit interests by taxing them heavily and charging them for street repairs.

Meanwhile, the introduction of mass-produced personal cars created new competition for public transit. As autos gained popularity in the 1920s and 1930s, frustrated commuters swapped out riding for driving, and private transit companies like Pacific Electric began failing.

Grudging public takeovers

In most cities, politicians refused to prop up the often-hated private transit companies that now were begging for tax concessions, fare increases or public buyouts. In 1959, for instance, politicians still forced Baltimore’s fading private transit company, the BTC, to divert US$2.6 million in revenues annually to taxes. The companies retaliated by slashing maintenance, routes and service.

Local and state governments finally stepped in to save the ruins of the hardest-strapped companies in the 1960s and 1970s. Public buyouts took place only after decades of devastating losses, including most streetcar networks, in cities such as Baltimore (1970), Atlanta (1971) and Houston (1974).

These poorly subsidized public systems continued to lose riders. Transit’s share of daily commuters fell from 8.5% in 1970 to 4.9% in 2018. And while low-income people disprortionately ride transit, a 2008 study showed that roughly 80% of the working poor commuted by vehicle instead, despite the high cost of car ownership.

There were exceptions. Notably, San Francisco and Boston began subsidizing transit in 1904 and 1918, respectively, by sharing tax revenues with newly created public operators. Even in the face of significant ridership losses from 1945 to 1970, these cities’ transit systems kept fares low, maintained legacy rail and bus lines and modestly renovated their systems.

Converging pressures

Today, public transit is under enormous pressure nationwide. Inflation and driver shortages are driving up operating costs. Managers are spending more money on public safety in response to rising transit crime rates and unhoused people using buses and trains for shelter.

Many systems are also contending with decrepit infrastructure. The American Society of Civil Engineers gives U.S. public transit systems a grade of D-minus and estimates their national backlog of unmet capital needs at $176 billion. Deferred repairs and upgrades reduce service quality, leading to events like a 30-day emergency shutdown of an entire subway line in Boston in 2022.

 

Despite flashing warning signs, political support for public transit remains weak, especially among conservatives. So it’s not clear that relying on government to make up for free fares is sustainable or a priority.

For example, in Washington, conflict is brewing within the city government over how to fund a free bus initiative. Kansas City, the largest U.S. system to adopt fare-free transit, faces a new challenge: finding funding to expand its small network, which just 3% of its residents use

A better model

Other cities are using more targeted strategies to make public transit accessible to everyone. For example, “Fair fare” programs in San Francisco, New York and Boston offer discounts based on income, while still collecting full fares from those who can afford to pay. Income-based discounts like these reduce the political liability of giving free rides to everyone, including affluent transit users.

 

Some providers have initiated or are considering fare integration policies. In this approach, transfers between different types of transit and systems are free; riders pay one time. For example, in Chicago, rapid transit or bus riders can transfer at no charge to a suburban bus to finish their trips, and vice versa.

Fare integration is less costly than fare-free systems, and lower-income riders stand to benefit. Enabling riders to pay for all types of trips with a single smart card further streamlines their journeys.

As ridership grows under Fair Fares and fare integration, I expect that additional revenue will help build better service, attracting more riders. Increasing ridership while supporting agency budgets will help make the political case for deeper public investments in service and equipment. A virtuous circle could develop.

History shows what works best to rebuild public transit networks, and free transit isn’t high on the list. Cities like Boston, San Francisco and New York have more transit because voters and politicians have supplemented fare collection with a combination of property taxes, bridge tolls, sales taxes and more. Taking fares out of the formula spreads the red ink even faster.

Nicholas Dagen Bloom, Professor of Urban Policy and Planning, Hunter College

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Details

Written by: Elizabeth Larson

Published: 18 April 2023

LAKE COUNTY, Calif. — After refusing to cogently answer questions about its members’ actions or motivations, the Board of Supervisors last week completed the work of dismantling the Lucerne Area Town Hall, an action which opponents said appears motivated by the town’s pushback against a project for which the district supervisor’s wife has advocated.

The Board of Supervisors took the unanimous vote during the morning session at the April 11 meeting.

The action included approving a resolution rescinding the 2017 formation of the Middle Region Town Hall and the 2018 amendment to change it to the Lucerne Area Town Hall, or LATH, in order to allow Supervisor EJ Crandell to establish a new organization, the Central Region Town Hall, or CERTH.

The board discussed the matter late last month. Crandell has not taken it to the community of Lucerne for a discussion.

The proposed resolution includes all of the 95458 zip code — not just the Lucerne community growth boundaries — and allows nonresident property owners to be seated on the new board, a proposal which the Lucerne Area Town Hall’s members rejected in its latest version of the bylaws, accepted last year both by that group and by the Board of Supervisors.

The matter had appeared a foregone conclusion after the board’s March 28 meeting, and Crandell quickly brought the matter back.

Crandell, who hadn’t taken the matter for a discussion in Lucerne with community members there, claimed it’s “a restructure” based on public comment at the March 28 meeting.

“It is evident that establishing CERTH is the most plausible for the central region of District 3,” he said.

Disagreeing with that conclusion was Kurt McKelvey, a 30-year resident of Lucerne who was the Lucerne Area Town Hall’s last chair.

“I encourage the board not to approve the proposed resolution before you today,” McKelvey said.

McKelvey suggested the motivation for Crandell’s actions wasn’t because of a claim of being more inclusive but rather that it stemmed from the town hall’s action at a special meeting on Dec. 21.

At that meeting, the town hall unanimously approved a resolution condemning a proposal by the Scotts Valley Band of Pomo Indians to turn the historic Lucerne Hotel — which the county sold without community support — into a homeless youth shelter.

“Community members expressed a range of opinions at that meeting, but the overwhelming majority of those present had serious concerns about the proposed project, and were in support of a LATH resolution condemning the project. The resolution to condemn the project was passed unanimously by the council, and was then sent to the county of Lake,” McKelvey said.

Crandell did not attend that meeting, although his wife Lorree was at a special meeting of the Lake County Board of Education that same night speaking in support of the Lucerne Hotel project.

Lorree Crandell also chairs the Lake County Continuum of Care, an organization on whose behalf then-Lake County Behavioral Health Services Director Todd Metcalf wrote a letter to the state advocating for a grant for the project at the historic building.

McKelvey said it was shortly after that special town hall meeting that all five of LATH’s council members were told their terms would end at the end of the year, in spite of the fact that Crandall assured him in November that the terms would be corrected before the end of the year so that they conformed to the LATH bylaws that specify two-year staggered terms.

“Due to this sudden and unexpected end of terms, we attempted to resolve this through email communications and public input in these chambers, and were ultimately told that we ‘just needed to reapply,” said McKelvey.

He added that, “So far I've only been given a series of conflicting and nonsensical reasons as to why this has all happened.”

Despite Crandell’s direction that they reapply, McKelvey said Crandell refused to appoint anyone and hadn’t given any substantive reason or justification for not doing so.

He said he believed it’s really an attempt to erase the work of the LATH in December.

McKelvey attempted to give the board the minutes of those meetings, LATH’s bylaws, a copy of the resolution against the Lucerne Hotel project, as well as petitions with signatures of community members opposing the project and California Government Code Section 1302, under the auspices of which the LATH continued to meet in recent months.

He said there have been attempts to portray those in support of drastically altering the LATH as being a “majority” when in fact it is more probable that they are a very small minority, and that many of those pushing for those drastic changes don't even live in Lucerne or the proposed territory.

McKelvey said he suspects once Lucerne residents find out about the changes, they’ll be upset about them. “These changes are unprecedented, nothing like this has been done with any other council in the county. I suggest, at the very least, you should hold an informational meeting about it in lucerne to gauge the community's actual views about this before any action to go forward with it.”

He’d made that suggestion for a community meeting in Lucerne ahead of the changes at a previous board meeting as well.

McKelvey said LATH has strived to give Lucerne its own voice and that the action was a gross disservice to Crandell’s constituents.

As he was attempting to ask four followup questions, the three-minute timer for public comment went off, and Board Chair Jessica Pyska repeatedly told him that his time was up.

John Jensen, a former LATH member who also is the co-founder of Lake County News and the Lucerne Area Revitalization Association, said LATH continues to meet with the support of the community and the association.

Jensen said Crandell’s changes are radical and go beyond just changing the borders, by allowing nonresident property owners to sit on them, which is not common for municipal advisory councils in Lake County.

He said when that proposed change to the bylaws about nonresident property owners came up, “it was not supported by the town hall and that raises questions about the genesis of this scheme.”

Jensen asked why residents of Lucerne have been excluded from this important discussion. He also asked how many municipal advisory councils in Lake County allow nonresidents to sit on them, why Crandell hadn’t discussed the matter directly with the town hall, who lobbied for the change, how many people lobbied for it, where those proponents live and what reasons they gave for wanting the change.

After that, Pyska allowed McKelvey to come forward to make additional comments.

“Lucerne really needs its own voice,” said McKelvey, adding that’s why the name of the town hall had been changed five years ago from the Middle Region Town Hall to the Lucerne Area Town Hall.

“The community of Lucerne has been largely underrepresented through the county. A lot of our needs have been unmet through decades,” said McKelvey.

He said LATH was just trying to help the community. “We’re all in this together, EJ.”

McKelvey then attempted to submit the minutes, resolution and petition papers to the board. This time, Assistant Clerk Johanna DeLong got up and pulled them from his hands and put them on the table next to her computer.

He said the town hall has continued to meet under the auspices of California Government Code Section 1302, which says, “Every officer whose term has expired shall continue to discharge the duties of his office until his successor has qualified.”

“Lastly, I respectfully request that the Board of Supervisors considers putting as much effort as you do into giving yourselves raises, patting yourselves on the back and suppressing the current representation of Lucerne and instead put that same effort and zeal into more productive things like prioritizing fixing the levees in Upper Lake, dredging our harbor in Lucerne, and keeping up on basic county maintenance needs. Those, I feel, are the real priorities. This whole thing that’s going on right now is just a disservice to the community,” McKelvey said.

He then asked his four questions:

How long has this change been in the works?

What is the compelling reason for the change?

How many people asked for this change?

Why are you supporting a radical departure like this, but only for one area?

Pyska then brought the matter back for action.

Crandell said he would cover some of the questions, but in actuality, he didn’t.

When he asked newly appointed County Counsel Lloyd Guintivano to respond to the use of Government Code 1302, Guintivano didn’t answer the question, instead saying that the board may form municipal advisory councils under Government Code 31010.

Crandell said he had only canceled one LATH meeting in December, a reference to the meeting that had been scheduled to take place at the Lucerne Hotel, but that the building’s owner, Andrew Beath, had told the group they couldn’t meet there due to the resolution condemning the sale that they planned to discuss and which they later approved.

The Dec. 21 meeting occurred the next week — it was held at the Lucerne Elementary School — and Crandell said he didn’t interfere but had sent an update that he claimed wasn’t shared with the public.

He then said there are 3,004 people in Lucerne, with 1,657 who are voting members and 1,076 people in the area of the Lucerne Hotel.

Crandell said there’s a suggestion that people advocating for the action are from the outside, conceding “there may be,” but adding, “That’s the discretion of us as the board.”

He added, “There is no situation where we want to lower the voice of Lucerne. That’s the exact opposite of this.”

Pyska then said there had been “a lot of support” for taking the action at the board’s March 28 meeting.

Supervisor Michael Green said that based on his reading of the one-line Government Code 1302, he didn’t think it applied to an appointed council member.

“I’m very supportive of any reasonable change needed,” Green said.

Green — who said at a board meeting last month that he “reenergized” the Scotts Valley Advisory Committee, an apparent reference to him updating that group’s bylaws to establish staggered terms at the start of this year — said that group also allows for nonresident property owners to have a leadership role.

Green said it can be helpful to have a fresh start from time to time.

Crandell said people who are not happy with the change can continue to have their own topics in their own private meetings.

Supervisor Moke Simon said that’s the case in his district. While the Middletown Area Town Hall’s membership is approved by the supervisors, the Lower Lake Action Committee Group has its own active group which is not Brown Act compliant.

Simon said the board has supported the Lucerne Harbor dredging, a project that has drug on for several years. “It will get done.”

Crandell added that he’s working “hand in hand” with Public Services Director Lars Ewing to move the harbor dredging along. “There’s a path forward.”

Crandell offered the resolution, which the board approved 5-0.

Public Records Act request

On March 28, after the Board of Supervisors gave Crandell support for his plan to override the existing town hall, Lake County News submitted a Public Records Act request to the county seeking information about the contacts he has had community members as well as what happened to a Facebook page for the Lucerne Area Town Hall that he had managed.

The county had 10 calendar days to initially respond to that request under state statute.

The county failed to meet that requirement.

On April 11, 14 days after the request was submitted, Lake County News resubmitted it.

Guintivano responded via email to say that his office is working on the request but that it needed more time.

He said it’s estimated the “records will be produced on or before May 8, 2023.”

That’s anticipated to be after members of the new town hall are appointed.

Email Elizabeth Larson at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.. Follow her on Twitter, @ERLarson, or Lake County News, @LakeCoNews.

Details

Written by: LAKE COUNTY NEWS REPORTS

Published: 18 April 2023

LAKEPORT, Calif. — Mendocino College’s Lake Center will host a Native Learning Symposium this week.

The event will take place at 3 p.m. Friday, April 21.

The panelists are Lori Thomas, a professor of Native American Studies at Santa Rosa Junior College and a member of the Hopland Band of Pomo Indians; Eliste Reeves, an elder from Round Valley Indian Tribes; and Beniakem Cromwell, the chairman of Robinson Rancheria.

They will focus on education, with panelists discussing both the history and current experiences of native students in the educational system.

Organizers ask people to register ahead of time through EventBrite.

A Zoom link also will be made available ahead of the event.

Future panels will discuss topics including icons and activists, wellness, science, native plants and foods, contemporary art and language.

The Mendocino College Lake Center is located at 2565 Parallel Drive.