Why Public Transit Should Be Funded by General Revenue

Introduction: Nashville's Failed Transit Referendum

Recently, voters in Nashville participated in a referendum that would have raised taxes to fund a $5.2 billion transit plan. The voters rejected the measure overwhelmingly, raising concerns about the city's ability to manage its growth as streets and highways become increasingly congested. Post-mortems of the referendum identified a variety of factors that contributed to the heavy loss, including muddled messaging and a mayoral scandal that tarnished the image of many key proponents (Garrison, 2018). While public transit in many cities has historically been funded through general revenues, the massive scale of infrastructure investment required today means that funding major upgrades often comes via referenda — pitting short-term individual interests against the broader public good.

This essay argues that the financing of public transit should not come down to referenda or even special taxes, but should instead come from a general funding model. One of the central reasons for this position is that transit is a public good whose benefits accrue to all, even to those who do not use it. Putting transit funding up for a public vote typically pits those who fear increased taxation against poorer communities who disproportionately benefit from improved public transit. The moral and ethical case for expanding transit is strong, but it is not always a persuasive argument in the short run — and is therefore vulnerable at the polls.

Public Transit as a Public Good

Transit qualifies as a public good because its benefits extend to those who use it as well as to future users and the broader community. A 2015 Mineta Transportation Institute study found a clear link between service intensity and ridership: more people ride buses when more buses are available. Higher levels of service reduce the friction associated with public transit — such as long walks and excessive wait times — which encourages greater use (Alam, Nixon & Zhang, 2015).

Increased ridership produces a further benefit: it frees road capacity for other drivers, reducing congestion. While some evidence suggests that increased transit spending will not reduce congestion in the long run (Stockton, 2018), this is not because transit fails to reduce car use. Rather, it reflects the fact that the rate of growth in car ownership outpaces the reduction in driving created by transit investment. In a growing city like Nashville, a single large transit expenditure will not eliminate congestion permanently; only sustained investment can achieve that. Nevertheless, the benefits — accruing to both riders and non-riders — clearly establish public transit as a public good.

Planning by Officials, Not Popular Vote

Because transit is a public good, spending decisions should be made by public officials on the basis of need — not by the general public through a ballot. Officials possess the analytical capacity to model traffic flows, account for new population growth, and determine years in advance where transit investment is most needed. If the people who hold this expertise need to persuade a city council or work through internal political channels to advance a proposal, that process is still far more effective than distilling complex transportation data into a handful of catchy slogans for a referendum campaign.

Weak messaging was, in fact, one of the identified failures of the Nashville campaign (Garrison, 2018). But a complex challenge like transportation planning in a large, growing city should never be reduced to the question of whether a marketing department can outmaneuver its opponents. The technical and strategic dimensions of transit planning demand expert judgment, not popular opinion.

Conclusion: Civic Community and the Case Against Referenda

This view is not universally shared, but residents of this country still retain the choice to live in a city or urban area governed by a centralized, democratic structure, or to live in an unincorporated or rural area where no such structure exists. No one is compelled, except by their own choice, to subject themselves to civic-level government. Because of that, those who choose to live in a city implicitly choose to contribute to its betterment.

Ideally, that means contributing to critical civic infrastructure of all kinds, including public transportation. Putting transportation infrastructure to a referendum inherently subverts the best interests of city residents in favor of individual preferences — and that runs counter to the entire rationale for organized community living. Public transportation should be treated as the essential infrastructure it is, funded through general revenues, and managed by officials equipped to plan for the long-term needs of a growing city.

References

Alam, B., Nixon, H. & Zhang, Q. (2015). Investigating the determining factors for transit travel demand by bus mode in US metropolitan statistical areas. Mineta Transportation Institute. Retrieved June 17, 2018 from http://transweb.sjsu.edu/research/investigating-determining-factors-transit-travel-demand-bus-mode-us-metropolitan

Garrison, J. (2018). 6 reasons why the Nashville transit referendum lost big. The Tennessean. Retrieved June 17, 2018 from https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/2018/05/02/nashville-transit-referendum-6-reasons-why-lost-big/571782002/

Stockton, N. (2018). Why traffic-choked Nashville said "no thanks" to public transit. Wired. Retrieved June 17, 2018 from https://www.wired.com/story/nashville-transit-referendum-vote-plan/