Presidential hopefuls want to fix mobility and inequality, but struggle to connect the two issues

Joe Biden boards Amtrak's Acela Express train following the end of his Vice Presidential term in January 2017. (Photo courtesy of Delaware Online)

Democratic presidential candidates (some of whom have since dropped out of the race) repeatedly referred to transportation when discussing their proposals to address economic inequality during their October debate:

• Pete Buttigieg cited his own transportation habits – his father drove him to school in a GM car, and now he now owns a Chevrolet Cruze – when discussing how corporations, particularly car companies, have decimated the U.S.’s manufacturing sector in the name of profit.
• Kamala Harris described how a person working a low-income job may turn to driving for Uber in hopes of keeping their family fed and housed.
• Beto O’Rourke reminded viewers that GM didn’t pay any federal income tax this past year (actually, GM hasn’t paid any such taxes since the federal government bailed it out).

The candidates’ discussion demonstrated a desire to achieve goals that more balanced transportation connectivity would catalyze.

But the candidates struggle to address the connection between transportation and inequality, continuing a decades-long trend. Despite making some profound points, they have not clearly articulated how mobility’s one-dimensional nature, which forces many working-class people to hand over thousands of dollars to wealthy auto and oil executives each year, exacerbates disparities.

Equitable land use reform is a hot topic, but candidates’ platforms overlook transportation’s role

The 2020 candidates have consistently expressed support for zoning reform, citing this as a way to address racial and economic segregation stemming from historical redlining and other factors. While several have proposed making some federal transportation-related funds contingent on progress in this area, the candidates’ platforms are missing important details and, in some cases, contain provisions that would perpetuate – and potentially even exacerbate – present-day inequality:

• Frontrunner Joe Biden  is the only high-polling candidate to support revision of local zoning regulations explicitly to facilitate more affordable housing near transit.  While some localities, such as the San Francisco Bay Area and San Diego, have made progress in this area, others continue to struggle. Biden also proposes a $10 billion, 10 year program to bolster transit in “high-poverty areas with limited transportation options” and sets ambitious (albeit vague) goals for higher-quality transit, bike, scooter, and pedestrian infrastructure in urban areas. However, he also proposes a 10 percent increase to highway funding; though he proposes the funding go to states that “embrace smart climate design and pollution reduction,” any road widening would induce more driving and stifle progress toward the mobility- and equality-focused goals he has described.  
• Elizabeth Warren’s American Housing and Economic Mobility Act, which she introduced in the Senate this year, would provide $10 billion in grants for infrastructure projects (among other things) on the condition localities reform their zoning regulations. A wide variety of projects would be eligible for the grants, including transit projects. Warren’s platform does cite parking minimums as one type of local regulation that inflates housing costs. However, her transportation proposal (described in a different, more environment-focused section of her platform) is centered largely on electric cars, which would have to be stored somewhere and thus may make it more challenging to lower parking minimums. 
• Bernie Sanders proposes making federal transportation and housing funds contingent on “zoning that ensures racial, economic, and disability integration that makes housing more affordable.” He cites urban interstate highways as a contributor to segregation and sprawl. However, in the climate-focused portion of his platform, Sanders suggests putting an extra $75 billion into the Highway Trust Fund, dedicated primarily to road expansion, to help provide “resilience and justice”.
• Cory Booker proposes tying eligibility for an array of federal infrastructure programs (including the Surface Transportation Block Grant Program) that provide localities a total of $16 billion in funds to zoning reform progress, though he doesn’t specify the milestones that would be used to measure this progress. Also, in the Senate, he has introduced the Transit to Trails Act, which if enacted would fund improved transit service connecting low-income communities and people of color to shared public spaces such as parks.
• Mike Bloomberg's plan shares traits of Warren's; he proposes $10 billion in competitive grants for "municipalities that remove obstacles to the construction of affordable housing in neighborhoods with good schools, transportation, and economic opportunities." While he does not specify the nature of the transportation, his proposal also states that he "prioritized housing near transportation" when mayor of New York, where people often use transit to get where they need to go.     

Urban planning-related aspects of other candidates’ platforms are less specific, but their proposals and experiences still contain some interesting insights into how candidates perceive the inequality-transportation relationship.

• Andrew Yang is the only candidate in contention to explicitly mention NIMBYism in his platform as a challenge to expanding affordable housing supply. Yang also is unique in specifically referencing the U.S.’s massive transit maintenance backlog – the cause of many of the service disruptions that cost low-income workers wages and even threaten their employment – though the transit-related aspects of his plan prioritize electrification of the country’s entire transit fleet (at a cost of $200 billion) rather than just making service more extensive and reliable.
• As a mayor, Buttigieg currently has more direct influence on local transit than any other candidate within striking distance, appointing three of the nine board members who govern South Bend’s TRANSPO bus system. That system – like many others in the U.S. – has suffered a ridership decline in the face of limited service hours and extent. However, the South Bend region recently started a pilot program that subsidizes bus rides for some low-income people. Also, a CityLab analysis found the region to be among the top ten small U.S. metros to live without a car, a way of life that puts as much as $9,300 per year – almost as much as Yang’s proposed $1,000-a-month Universal Basic Income – back in peoples’ pockets.

A national focus on transportation would help leaders address many issues, including inequality

“Transportation is fundamental and affects every aspect of a person’s quality of life,” Scott Goldstein, Policy Director at advocacy organization Transportation for America, told me. “It determines whether you can access jobs, how many jobs you can access, [and] is also central to health outcomes, which certainly relate to inequality.”

Some legislators do fight for the transportation needs of their constituents. For example, Congress’s Future of Transportation Caucus, announced October 19, consists of 21 House Democrats who have committed to supporting more equitable transit. And representatives of rural areas, on both sides of the aisle, have fought to sustain and expand lifeline Amtrak service in their districts.   

But despite these occasional initiatives, transportation doesn’t get the sustained attention from policymakers that these impacts necessitate.

“Transportation is often high on the second list of priorities,” Goldstein said. “It needs to be high on the first list, if not the highest.”

Given this, it’s to be expected that 2020 candidates’ proposals and comments on transportation consist of scattered statements, presented mainly in the context of personal experiences and other policy areas, rather than a detailed plan to improve connectivity itself.

Personal transportation experiences can provide candidates beneficial perspective. For example, many of the candidates – who are seen regularly on Amtrak’s Acela Express train, sometimes even running to catch it or riding together – strongly tout high-speed rail.

But such perspective may not fully inform policymakers on the consequences of existing U.S. transportation. Accordingly, they may act on misguided conclusions that stem from these consequences, but lack context.

For example, the Urban Institute found that car ownership has “considerably greater” effect on earnings than access to (inadequate) transit. Researchers also concluded that those with cars experience “less exposure to poverty,” and “lower levels of cancer risk,” while also moving “to neighborhoods with higher levels of school performance” than those without automobile access. The organization subsequently came out in support of policies that would increase car ownership.

Goldstein emphasized the difference every person can make in facilitating a more cohesive national discussion on transportation connectivity, overcoming the present-day cacophony and catalyzing policy that could have far-reaching benefits, including reduced inequality.

“It takes the public to stand up and request,” he said. “It [also] takes policymakers willing to do something a little different, and be willing to have a tough conversation.”

Capital Bikeshare vs Peloton: The ultimate DC-area cycling showdown

Capital Bikeshare's station across the street from Falls Church, VA's Audacious Aleworks. (Photo by me)

When I don’t have any big plans on weeknights, my recent routine has been pretty consistent: exercise, cook dinner, then settle in for the daily “All Star Trek” marathon on the Heroes and Icons (H&I) channel.

Cheap, corny commercials enhance the entertainment value of the nightly broadcast, which features an episode from every existing live-action Trek series (sans Discovery). Hall-of-Fame slugger Frank Thomas peddles testosterone booster Nugenix with the tagline “she’ll like it too,” while former USC and NFL journeyman quarterback Rodney Peete and his wife tout the purported benefits of weight-loss concoction Lipozene as a doctor deadpans that “his blood pressure and cholesterol have really improved” thanks to the pill. There’s also auto insurer The General, which does everything it can to make car-free life look miserable in its efforts to lure people with utterly horrid driving records (though, refreshingly, I’ve never seen a straight-up car commercial on H&I).

It was through H&I’s ads that I first learned of stationary bike manufacturer Peloton, whose commercials featuring models pedaling endlessly inside luxury homes as the machine yells at them fit right into the channel’s collage. But Peloton, which (like some certain other corporations) calls itself a tech company, rose above the fray, becoming so cool that my apartment complex shelled out $2,245 of us tenants’ rent – or, about one-tenth the cost of building a parking spot in a DC garage – to plop one of the bikes in our building’s gym. Nevertheless, I stuck with our gym’s elliptical and rower, since when I bike, hike, or run I prefer to utilize Rock Creek Park or other parts of our region’s expanding trail network.

But then, Monica Ruiz-portrayed Peloton Wife pedaled an H&I ad to where none had gone before: viral fame.

And that settled it. It was time to break my routine and see how this venture capital-backed bike stands up to the DC transportation system’s most rugged competition: Capital Bikeshare.

Peloton: Vigorous pace, stuck in place

A Peloton ad airs on H&I during a recent edition of "All Star Trek." (Photo by me)

To maximize the tech bro-dystopian vibe of this particular morning workout, I'd thrown on the Hyperloop t-shirt my uncle had gifted me last Christmas. But my Peloton ride was almost over before it started.

I can start my workout on any other machine in my apartment’s gym by – at most – just pressing a button. But the Peloton trendily forced me to create an online account. I nearly defected to our Concept2 rower but backtracked at the last second, surrendered my dignity, and handed over an e-mail address and password to the company and its investors.

I was then presented with a list of virtual classes. But I wanted to enjoy the quiet morning and not be yelled at by someone in a studio 225 miles up the Northeast Corridor. To just start a simple workout, one conducted on my terms, I had to track down a “more” tab, then scroll and click again. But, just as residents of Tijuana somehow navigate their city’s microtransit system, I persevered and was finally able to pedal.     

   

I cranked up the resistance to 60 out of 100, mimicking a trip up Woodley Place, and set out on a 10-mile ride. According to the machine’s possibly-erroneous readings, I cruised along at 22 to 24 mph – unhindered by cars – burning 500 calories and reaching the finish line in under 30 minutes. By the time I hopped off the bike, my Hyperloop shirt was as drenched as a guinea pig in an Elon Musk submarine.

But was I in the Star Trek: The Next Generation episode “Where Silence Has Lease?” In that episode, the Enterprise’s instruments show the ship traveling straight ahead at high speeds, akin to the Peloton’s readings during my ride, but the crew is unable to find their way out of a bluish void that eventually projects a face – a “damned ugly nothing,” according to Chief Engineer Geordi La Forge.

I never saw a face (though I would have had I taken one of Peloton’s classes). But at the end of the workout, despite all that effort, I hadn’t escaped my apartment’s gym. This wasn’t necessarily a bad thing, as it was raining outside but I could stay in for some sit-ups and weightlifting.

However, Peloton didn’t get me to any of the many amazing DC-area destinations that I’ve biked to over the past few years.

Capital Bikeshare: If only the journey were free from cars

My cycling route from Central DC to Audacious Aleworks. (Screenshot by me)

A couple nights later, I set out from my central DC office to one of those destinations: Falls Church, VA’s Audacious Aleworks Brewery & Taproom. I hopped on a Capital Bikeshare bike by simply scanning the barcode attached to my keychain; no login necessary. (Granted, I did have to create an online account a while back to purchase the $85 annual pass that grants me access to the Lyft-operated system).

The 14-mile route I took – over the 14^th street bridge, down the Mount Vernon Trail past National Airport, then westbound on the Four Mile Run and Washington & Old Dominion (W&OD) Trails to reach Falls Church – was not the shortest possible trip. But much of the ride was on dedicated bike paths, and the W&OD’s long, but gentle grade through the forest – a reminder of the trail’s origins as a rail line – is preferable to the more direct Custis Trail’s sharper undulations through I-66 exhaust.

According to Capital Bikeshare’s own numbers, this workout was not nearly as strenuous as the one Peloton provided. Even though the 1 hour, 20 minute trip (including two brief stops to dock and re-rent my bike, helping avoid overage fees for trips over 30 minutes) took nearly three times as long as my Peloton ride, I apparently burned just 438 calories. Granted, CaBi may have under-counted the calorie burn, as the company’s time-based calculations assumed I’d only traveled 11 miles, rather than 14.

However, interaction with cars – a big part of what reduced the speed I could travel and, accordingly, the strain on my body – created stress that negated any benefits of the more relaxed rate of exertion. If Peloton’s spinning-in-place experience was reminiscent of “Where Silence Has Lease,” this felt like one of the many Trek episodes where the ship must take “evasive maneuvers” in a futile effort to avoid threats such as temporal anomalies, Romulan torpedoes, or a Borg tractor beam.    

To just reach the 14^th street bridge, I had to navigate the perpetual chaos that car-based transportation inflicts on central DC. Then, on the Mount Vernon Trail, I was blinded by car headlights from the adjacent highway in several spots, forcing me to slow – and even stop a couple of times – to ensure I stayed on the bike path. And finally, near the end of the ride I encountered an unanticipated trail closure in Banneker Park that is forcing cyclists to cross hostile Sycamore Street, where I had to dodge an inattentive right-turning Uber driver. (This final detour caused my last segment to take longer than 30 minutes, costing me $1.50).

But on this CaBi ride, I also was treated to some amazing sights that only outdoor cycling can provide. Descending planes bound for DCA roared over the Mount Vernon Trail at Gravelly Point. I threaded between a waterway and a WMATA bus yard on the Four Mile Run trail. And on the W&OD trail, I cruised along though the cool December air, guided only by CaBi’s so-so strobe light and a nearly-full moon that illuminated a lingering dusting of snow from the day before.

And at the end of the journey, I was rewarded by a couple excellent imperial stouts and one of Audacious Aleworks’ tasty grilled cheeses – products the tech industry cannot disrupt.

       

The Washington and Old Dominion trail in Reston, VA, pictured earlier this year. (Photo by me)

Prior to this self-administered competition, I assumed I would find CaBi practical and Peloton absurd. But after my two workouts, I can see that there’s a place for both.

CaBi, though a bit sluggish on hills, is an excellent way to combine exercise and mobility. If you’re really feeling it, continue west on the W&OD another 11 miles past Falls Church, dock your bike at one of the system’s outermost stations in Reston, and head over to Bike Lane Brewing – literally, a bike shop and a top-notch brewery under one roof. And once your workout’s done, you can take public transit back home – or to wherever you want to go – without worry.     

But it’s inevitable that, even if you’re on a comfortable trail for most of your route, at some point you will have to interact with automobiles. Weather conditions also can drastically impact the experience, in some cases rendering a ride impossible.

Indoor stationary bikes do offer a way to avoid these externalities and just let loose, even if they lack the sensation and thrill of an outdoor CaBi ride. The tech-oriented culture surrounding the pricey Peloton, however, is not needed. The plight the protagonists of 2003 Academy Award-nominated French animated comedy film The Triplets of Belleville face – Tour de France cyclists are kidnapped by the mafia and forced to race each other on stationary bikes in a gambling hall – feels more authentic.  

Personally, I’ll continue to primarily use CaBi for my cycling workouts, though I won’t rule out using Peloton again – or maybe, one of the gym’s other, less trendy stationary bikes – in certain situations.  

Federal funding restrictions are stranding thousands of DC-area bus riders

Striking Metrobus drivers rally in front of WMATA headquarters on November 6, 2019. (Photo by me)

This week, Fairfax Connector’s drivers walked off the job, leaving a large swath of DC’s Northern Virginia suburbs with little to no bus service. The labor action expands upon a strike that has suspended or substantially reduced service on 18 Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) Metrobus routes – also all in Northern Virginia – for more than a month. Combined, bus routes affected by the two work stoppages see nearly 40,000 boardings per weekday.

The disrupted bus routes are all operated under contract by French multinational corporation Transdev. Last year, WMATA contracted out the 18 afflicted routes – which comprise about 5 percent of the DC area’s Metrobus system – in an effort to save $15 million, while Fairfax Connector shifted from a different contract operator to Transdev earlier this year.

The Metrobus drivers have reported that they earn as much as $12 per hour less and pay thousands of dollars more in health care deductibles than drivers of routes operated directly by WMATA, and Fairfax Connector’s drivers have voiced similar frustration with Transdev’s plans for their salaries and benefits.

The current structure of federal transportation funding helps explain WMATA and Fairfax Connector’s ill-fated cost-cutting efforts. But Congress could help transit agencies avoid similar challenges in the future by allowing states and localities to use this funding to operate transit service, rather than just to build and buy things.

***

Today’s federal transportation funding formulas not only are calculated to perpetuate auto dependency, but also fail to account for transit agencies’ core mission: transporting people. Specifically, almost all federal transit funds are reserved for capital expenditures such as infrastructure construction and vehicle purchases, and accordingly are fenced off from system operation. This restriction, in place since 1998, prevents states and localities from substituting federal funds for the operating subsidies they provide, but arguably is a relic of the archaic expectation that public transit – in contrast to other transportation modes – must fund itself.  

Thus, states and localities are responsible for funding most transit operation. A 2015 Transportation for America report describes how this reality puts pressure on agency management to minimize these expenditures at all costs. This squeeze has the greatest effect on bus service since operating expenditures comprise 59 percent of its cost, relative to 42 percent for rail.

 

For WMATA, this pressure is particularly strong, as an agreement between DC, Maryland, and Virginia to provide the agency dedicated long-term capital funding came with a cap on year-to-year changes to operating subsidies. This cap came after WMATA cut service substantially in 2017 following a steep ridership decline the previous year, when maintenance-necessitated service disruptions forced many people to find alternate ways to get where they need to go. Fairfax Connector, which carries many people to and from WMATA bus and rail routes, also faced ridership challenges during the same period, affecting farebox revenue.     

Thus, in both WMATA and Fairfax Connector’s cases, contract bus operation, which research has shown achieves cost savings largely through lower wages and fewer work rules, may have seemed more palatable to both riders and agency management than additional service cuts.

Labor comprises more than 70 percent of WMATA’s operating costs – in line with national figures – so given the funding structure-based pressure the agency logically saw cost-cutting in this area as low-hanging fruit. The agency’s leadership adopted competitive contracting among their primary strategies for keeping expenses down.

Fairfax Connector, which serves a relatively auto-oriented part of the DC region, turned to contract operation much earlier than WMATA did. In fact, Fairfax County is one of several jurisdictions in and around the nation’s capital that have reduced costs by forming their own transit agencies, which often provide contract-operated local bus service, instead of subsidizing additional Metrobus service.

But unlike federal appropriations, transit labor costs are based in market forces, not politics. And as the people who operate our bus systems are tasked with keeping riders safe while navigating the same scary U.S. roads on which more than 36,000 people are killed annually – a job that requires months of rigorous training and can subject workers to high stress, fatigue, and other health problems – these costs are understandably high.

In fact, a national bus driver shortage that has caused delays and necessitated service cuts on urban, suburban, and rural transit systems alike suggests that current compensation for the U.S.’s 430,000 transit workers is not sufficient.

Accordingly, funding formulas that encourage transit agencies to reduce workers’ already-insufficient compensation are likely to catalyze failure.  

***

Advocacy organizations such as TransitCenter and Transportation for America have expressed support for allowing federal funding to be expended on transit operation. TransitCenter, which envisions federal transit operating funds as a match for the subsidies states and localities provide, also has encouraged Congress to redesign some capital transit grants in a manner that encourages localities to operate more service. Such expansion would catalyze increased transit ridership – as has happened in Canada, where per-capita transit service levels are higher than in the U.S. – and a more stable future for U.S. mobility.  

However, if the structure of federal transportation funding is not adjusted to help fund transit system operation and encourage expanded service, transit agencies will be forced to continue defying the labor market. The American public will continue to bear the consequences, through both work stoppages by undercompensated operators and longer-term service reductions stemming from a continued operator shortage.

For people in Northern Virginia, those severe consequences are already here. Those consequences could just be the beginning, as WMATA’s largest employee union has indicated a broader work stoppage – bringing the entire capital region to a halt – is possible if the transit agency proceeds with plans to contract out operation of its Metrorail Silver Line extension, which is set to open next year.   

But at a rally last month for WMATA’s striking Metrobus operators, an environmentalist stood in solidarity with labor interests and suggested a better option.

“We know that for us to invest in transit, we need to invest in the workers who are on the front lines of making the system actually good for our communities and for their families,” Liz Butler, Vice President of Organizing and Strategic Alliances at Friends of the Earth, told the 500-strong crowd. “We want to…make sure that resources are invested into public transportation so that we can have an impact on climate change.”

The rally was held in front of WMATA headquarters, intended to motivate agency officials to step in and encourage Transdev to negotiate in better faith with the striking workers.

But the people who most need to heed Butler’s words work at a much more powerful public-sector headquarters, under a certain iron dome located just a few blocks from WMATA’s Brutalist office building. Because it’s there that, next year, legislators will ride a subway train to their respective chambers and cast a vote reauthorizing hundreds of billions of dollars in federal transportation funding that will shape how we get around for years to come.