Hidden Motives

The problems that plague SDSU students in taking public transportation, such as frequency, safety issues, and reliability, are linked to a  wide lens of a historical narrative of American culture, policymakers and voters.  According to Joseph Stromberg, they see public transit as a social welfare program rather than an investment, which differs from European, Asian and Canadian communities' mindset. 

​

According to Yingling Fan, a professor of urban and regional planning at the University of Minnesota, states  at one time America was the envy of the world in terms of public transit with the electric streetcar before the 1920s.  However, by the mid-20s, the electric streetcar companies nationwide started to go bankrupt, and the American government was not interested in investing in this form of public transportation. At this same time, people who were selling cars reframed the narrative that the car was an all purpose transport necessity instead of a special mobility tool.  Also, the marketing strategy to the American people was to convince them of the need to go everywhere in the car, and that it shows they are living in a modern city.

​

One argument, among many, for why American public transit is a disaster is the suburban sprawl during the 1950s and the economic boom after World War II.  However, this argument does not hold up due to the success of public transportation in European, Asian, and Canadian cities that view it as a public utility within the same time frame.  According to American government officials, when describing public transportation, they use “funding.”  However, when it comes to building highways and interstate freeways, they use the word "investment".  

​

One can argue that funding and investment are interchangeable.  There is truth in this argument.  Both of these words have positive and negative connotations.  In this context funding is synonymous with raising taxes and short term results with investment it is a long–term benefit. 

​

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

According to Tabuchi's New York Times article, “highway funding has historically been built into state and federal budgets, but transit funding usually requires a vote to raise taxes, creating what experts call a systemic bias toward cars over trains and buses.” 

​

Also, Stromberg states that “many local politicians don’t see transit as a vital transportation function - instead, they think of it as a government aid program to help poor people who lack cars.”

​

This idea that public transit is the equivalent of social welfare, which will increase local taxes since financing public transit is based on local funding and not investment into American infrastructure, has been used successfully by corporations to kill public transit projects around the country.  According to Hiroko Tabuchi, one of the most aggressive and successful corporations to stop public transit funding around the country is Koch Industries, owned by the Koch Brothers, “which is a significant producer of gasoline, asphalt, seatbelts, tires, and other automotive parts.” 

​

In 2018, Nashville Tennessee  had a $5.4 billion transit plan and was scheduled to be voted on May 1, 2018.  Early polling showed voters were in favor of the plan. 

​

 “It was backed by the city’s popular mayor and a coalition of businesses,” states Tabuchi, and its supporters had outspent the opposition, and Nashville was choking on cars.”

​

Funded by the Koch Brothers, the Libertarian political organization Americans For Prosperity, which sees public transit as a waste of taxpayer money, gathered volunteers and targeted neighborhoods where voters would be against raising taxes.  The organization made almost 42,000 phone calls in their campaign and knocked on over 6,000 doors. 

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

 

 

 

 

They used the rallying cry of stopping higher taxes and asking open-ended questions such as, “Do you agree that raising the sales tax to the highest rate in the nation must be stopped?” ‘Samuel Nienow, one of the organizers, asked a startled man who answered the door at his ranch-style home in Marc. “Can we count on you to vote ‘no’ on the transit plan?,” wrote Tabuchi.  

​

 Ironically, Americans for Prosperity “supports spending tax money on highways and roads,” wrote Tabuchi

Unfortunately, Nashville's pro-transit movement couldn’t change the narrative against Americans for Prosperity.  

“Their message became muddled with supporters claiming that the plan would do everything: create jobs, benefit the environment and even boost the health and wellness of residents,” Tabuchi wrote. 

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

 

 

 

 

 

Like many communities throughout the country, San Diego Metropolitan Transit has current projects to improve public transportation.  They range from the San Ysidro Mobility Hub to Zero Emissions Bus.  Although these projects are necessary to improve the San Diego transit system in its current state, it is still a “band-aid” solution. 

​

According to YouTube video-"Why The U.S. Gave Up On Public Transit,” the best way to have an effective and reliable public transit system in the future for America has to be a significant investment by the federal government.  

The first solution to get the American federal government to provide massive investment is to distrupt a long-standing narrative that affects a mind-set of  both voters and politicians that public transit is welfare and not beneficial for the country.  Similar to the strategy of the anti-transit group Americans for Prosperity, a grassroots effort by pro-transit groups is to tell a new story that funding is an investment for America’s future.  Also, is to confront the anti-transit hypocrisy, by using social media, as to why they are ok with public funding of highways and interstate freeways but not for public transit.