by Julia Masters
It’s no secret Boston’s congestion is one of the worst in the country. In fact, according to a study released earlier this year, Boston drivers spend the highest percentage of their time stuck in traffic compared to any other city in the country. That means higher than Los Angeles AND New York City, two of the cities we think of as traffic nightmares.
Congestion is caused by a myriad of factors, ranging from poor infrastructure to inadequate public transportation. Earlier this year, we published a blog on the proposed cap-and-trade program called TCI, or the Transportation and Climate Initiative (if you haven’t read it yet, hop over here first). TCI is a regional collaboration of 12 Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states and the District of Columbia that seeks to improve transportation, develop the clean energy economy and reduce carbon emissions from the transportation sector.
However, I’d argue that this mechanism for measuring and accounting for greenhouse gas policies is far from perfect. In fact, it suffers from predictably regressive policies that do not tap into the root of climate threats, and will come nowhere near solving them in a timely and just manner.
Per the Climate Justice Alliance, a coalition of local environmental and climate justice organizations, frontline community groups are not being consulted or considered in these conversations, leaving very little incentive for us “common folks” to believe TCI is intended to serve equitably. Instead, the initiative is guided by stakeholders with overt interest in a cap-and-trade model, and specifically, Governors (on both sides of the aisle) in these states.
It would be silly to lament the downsides of this transit policy without making note of the obvious depletion of our public transportation systems in the United States, especially Boston. As one of the oldest public transportation systems in the country, Boston is long overdue for structural overhauls and an influx of funding, which has been stalled by lack of statewide support. What’s a city, plagued by derailments and delays, supposed to do?!
One of the most progressive visions in public transit is to eliminate all fares. In fact, according to Naomi Klein, this is precisely what cities around the world should be doing. “To really respond to the urgency of climate change, public transport would have to become free.”
Sound wild? Let’s break it down.
Fare-free public transit isn’t a new idea. During times of high pollution, Paris and other large European cities have removed fares, and there are many examples of towns and cities experimenting with such policy. There are plenty of reasons why removing fares will incentivize usage — drawing auto drivers to an easier and free option for transportation. This would take cars (and their emissions) off the road while increasing cleaner transportation, a boon to the many American cities with atrocious traffic patterns. Fewer cars on the roads also means safer conditions for walking and biking, another ripple effect of such policy.
Of course, removing fares doesn’t mean transit functions for free. However, there are plenty of options for funding, like requiring car manufacturers to pay a tax or diverting funding for expansion of highways to offset the transit fees.
Additionally, the shift to fare-free public transport is imagined not as a commodity, but as a common good, just like other public services such as parks, roads, sidewalks, streetlights, and libraries — which are free to use without paying a fee each time.
In short — there are WAY too many cars on the road. The answer isn’t just congestion pricing or a cap-and-trade model, which won’t actually solve the inequalities of our systems or divert the benefits to the areas where they are most needed. We must subvert the system to force fossil fuel companies and large carbon producing corporations to fix this problem — through thinking outside the box —er, road. As we do so, we must center and uplift frontline communities bearing the brunt of the effects of climate change.