In 2015, a tragic derailment of an Amtrak train in Philadelphia killed eight people and injured 200. In the immediate aftermath of the horrific crash, as in all such cases, people wanted to know who or what was to blame and how to avoid future crashes.
I advocated for some of the victims and families in that tragedy, so it was personally concerning to me as well as to millions of others who depend on regional rail and transit networks.
The initial belief was that a distracted engineer was responsible. Further investigation, however, carried out by government teams and other experts revealed that the activation of a computerized speed-limiting system had been delayed, partially due to constraints in the federal budget. Additionally, an older speed-control device had fallen into disrepair before a modern computerized replacement could be installed.The train engineer was charged with eight counts of manslaughter but was eventually cleared of all charges. This loss of life, ultimately, was the result of an underfunded, aging and ill-maintained transit safety system.
It has become a tragically familiar story across our nation: Lives lost or severely impacted because vital infrastructure has not been maintained and modernized at the level needed. Whether it is a bridge in Minnesota or a water system in Flint, Michigan, the common theme is the need to take action or responsibility before it is too late.
We simply must not be at the mercy of the reliability of infrastructure envisioned or built nearly a century or more ago by past visionaries like Commodore Cornelius Vanderbilt. The economic impact of public transit systems to cities and the nation as a whole are tremendous and far too often overlooked.
According to a 2014 study by the American Public Transportation Association, large U.S. cities that invest $1 billion into their public transportation systems could see a multiplier effect return of $3.7 billion annually in additional GDP. That is a nearly four-fold return on investment that continues to pay transit system users back year after year. That is money well spent.
The study finds value comes from the fact that a functioning and smooth-running transportation system invites more people to buy property and settle into an urban area. The more people concentrated in a specific area, the more companies will move there and the more well-paying jobs will be created.
Even those not living within city limits benefit because it enables them to travel into metropolitan areas for better-paying jobs. Municipalities and states will benefit in turn from increased tax bases.
As a veteran advocate for a wide range of transit victims, I have first-hand access to both federal and independent safety reports. What is exceptionally clear is that many of these accidents were preventable. While maintenance in today’s dollars can be costly, the price of inaction is far greater in terms of both money and lives.
Older People Will Need Much Better Transit
Transit agencies, take note: For the growing number of Americans over 65, mobility can’t wait.
A new report by TransitCenter makes the case that healthy aging hinges on better mass transportation. No surprise, there’s a lot agencies can do to step up service.
1. Good transit can ease isolation
Nearly a quarter of Americans over age 65 don’t drive—a share that increases as the years add up. But giving up the car keys can contribute to social isolation, especially in car-centric communities. A 2009 survey cited by the TransitCenter report found that, of adults 65-and-up who hadn’t taken a trip outside their home in the past week, more than half said they’d like to get out more regularly.
2. Good transit can connect to medical care
3. Good transit is safer than driving
Whether older drivers are more likely than the general population to get into vehicle crashes is a matter of some debate. Despite headline-grabbing incidents involving elderly drivers, data from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety indicates that young male motorists are bigger menaces on the roads than all but the oldest drivers. Some recent research also suggests that older motorists compensate for a decline in eyesight and reflexes by self-regulating—avoiding driving at night or in challenging conditions, driving more carefully, and abiding by traffic laws. One thing is clear, however: Whether drivers or pedestrians, the elderly are more likely to die as a result of car crashes due to their more fragile physical states. For old and young alike, transit is safer than driving by leaps and bounds.
4. Good transit means a safer way to walk
As pedestrians, seniors are particularly vulnerable in the event of a car crash since they have a harder time recovering from major injuries. Graying folks who have to walk far to the bus or train stop could be all the more endangered by car-centric streets and distracted drivers. Transit-friendly streets should also be friendly to pedestrians, designed to slow car traffic down—or eliminate it entirely.
Just as older folks stand to benefit from great transit perhaps more than the average person, they’re also more vulnerable to its weaknesses. Unreliable, infrequent, hard-to-access service isn’t attractive to anyone, and it’s especially unappealing if you don’t have the energy to walk far, stand around, and wait. And it blocks those with health conditions that physically prevent it.
Most transit systems, especially those built prior to the Americans with Disabilities Act, don’t respond adequately to these limitations. Buses that lack accessible seating, stations without shade or benches, and connections that require crossing dangerous roads discourage elderly users. So do, for example, the 362 out of 472 subway stations in New York City that aren’t accessible to wheelchair users, as the TransitCenter report notes.
Paratransit is supposed to fill in accessibility gaps for those who can’t get around independently, and demand for “call-a-rides” is rising as the population grays, according to the report. Most such services require an unduly amount of advance notice by riders; they fail to supply the frequency and convenience that meaningful transit should. Paratransit systems also require enormous subsidies: On average, each one costs nearly 3.5 times the average, fixed-route trip, according to the report.
Cities and start-ups haven’t cracked the code of on-demand microtransit yet, but when they do, the promise is huge: multi-passenger shuttle buses that can create their own routes, responding to the demands of a smartphone-wielding population, could fill first-last-mile gaps between home, work, and transit, supplement maxed-out subway lines, or replace inefficient fixed-route bus lines that serve small numbers of riders.
Microtransit could be a game-changer for seniors savvy with smartphones, as a recent Mobility Lab survey in Arlington, Virginiaindicates. And before readers cry privatization, public agencies in Austin, Kansas City, and Los Angeles have tried, or are experimenting with, contracting microtransit start-ups under their own umbrella—this seems to be the wave of the future.
7. … But the basics of great transit haven’t evolved much
On-demand apps stand to be a fine supplement to transit options—but a replacement they are not. Few modes are as cost-efficient and environmentally friendly as a plain old bus with a well-designed route. And it turns out what seniors want in their transit options isn’t much different from the rest of us, according to TransitCenter’s national Who’s On Board 2016 survey. Riders under and and over age 65 value frequency and speed in their transit options most. Older riders also emphasize accessibility and comfort, with shelter and seating ranking high among their priorities. Those don’t sound bad for younger folks, either.