Testimony for New Jersey Transit - Hearing on Fare Increases - 2 January 2002

from Richard H. Colby, member of NJ-ARP and Sierra Club,
217 Liverpool Avenue
Egg Harbor City NJ 08215-1319
609-965-4453
(dick.colby@stockton.edu)

Last month I visited Seattle, where public transit fares in the central zone have been reduced to zero, and where fares in the periphery are so low that many commuters have given up their cars. The benefits of clean air (better health, better visibility), more exercise - walking to and from bus stops, and reduced congestion presumably outweigh the costs to the taxpayers of public subsidy. That's the way it should be in New Jersey.

As an NJ-ARP member I OPPOSE (1) most strongly, the proposed withdrawal of off-peak fares on weekdays. The fare structure should provide an incentive to substitute mass transit for cars. Each rider-constituency should be independently wooed. The off-peak traveler is harder to convince than the rush-hour traveler. (2) I oppose changing the hearing structure to permit future weekly- and monthly fare increases to be made without hearings. Such a change shows disrespect for democratic institutions.

If we accept that mass transit must always incorporate SOME degree of subsidy, the question then becomes "HOW MUCH?" NJ-ARP provides guidance in its 10 Dec 2001 Newsletter by comparing the 25-mile monthly rail commutation fares in most of the large American transit systems:
New Jersey Transit: $185.
Philadelphia SEPTA: $163.
New York City MTA: $153.
Boston MBTA: $145.
Washington DC MARC: $123.
Chicago METRA: $95.
San Francisco Caltran: $89.

I'm most offended by the narrow perspective that a single agency of government can (or must) ignore bigger issues. The objective should be to serve the needs of all our citizens by reducing the use of cars. Fairness requires that any fare-increase that works to move people INTO cars be overbalanced by actions to move people OUT OF cars. So I humbly suggest that any NJT increase be made CONDITIONAL upon imposition of "opposite" sanctions such as a substantial increase in the tax on gasoline, or on vehicle registration fees.

A VERY big issue is the global warming effect of vehicle emissions of carbon dioxide. Using the principle "think globally - act locally," I urge you to do what will contribute to the solution of a world problem.

*********************************************. Supplementary remarks:

1. I awarded "some sort of prize" to the AMBIANCE of the Camden hearing: a noisy, dirty, congested lobby of a bus depot, at below-freezing temperature, without voice amplification, and with the steady loud whine of bus engines drowning out all that was said.

2. I acknowledged that, if it were a profit-making private business, NJTransit should be entitled to substantially raise its fares. But, as an agency of state government, other considerations beyond the financial balance sheet should apply.

3. As a professor in the Environmental Studies Program at Stockton College, I noted that my colleagues ALL agree that global warming due to carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel consumption is one of the four most serious threats to all of human civilization. (The consequences of global warming include sea-level rise, desertification, spread of tropical diseases into higher latitudes, and altered weather patterns affecting storms and rainfall, which in turn will affect agriculture. The other threats are the "spikes" in world population, species extinctions, and generally non-sustainable consumption of such resources as water, wood and fish. See Ed Ayres' "God's Last Chance.") About a third of our CO2 production comes from cars. Shifting people from cars into mass transit would reduce their CO2 production (from transportation) by a factor of close to 10.

4. Relatedly, my main point was that NJTransit's fare strategy should be WHATEVER IT TAKES TO GET PEOPLE OUT OF CARS. Earth pollution (= overconsumption) is an example of "Tragedy of the Commons," and the only possible solution is (unfortunately) government intervention that limits human freedom.

5. I also mentioned my perspective as Chairman of the Egg Harbor City Planning Board: it would help revitalize towns and cities if INCENTIVES such as cheap public transportation could be used to draw residents back into them. The war on suburbs and malls (aka smart growth) must include both carrots and sticks.