If your commute is a nightmare, blame Congress
Matthew Yglesias,
Tribune News Service
America's mass transit agencies are teetering on the brink of collapse. The money they got from Congress to help them through COVID-19 is running out, but ridership remains below what it was before the pandemic. Lower fare revenue plus higher wage costs equals a bigger deficit. Unless state governments fill that gap, agencies will need to dramatically curtail service. Yet service levels are one of the primary determinants of ridership. Hence the increasing risk of a 'death spiral,' where revenue shortfalls lead to service cutbacks, which lead to lower revenue, which lead to service cuts, and so on. State legislatures should try to avoid this doom cycle, even though finding the money may be difficult. But there is a deeper issue here, beyond the question of less funding versus more, or higher versus lower levels of service: the declining labor productivity of transit agencies. The tasks performed by transit workers have remained basically the same for decades even as wages have risen to keep up with economy-wide trends.
The agencies themselves deserve some blame for not finding ways to modernize operations and improve efficiency. But Congress itself is a major culprit — specifically, and sorry to wonk out here, Section 13(c) of the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964. This provision, as Marc Scribner of the Reason Foundation points out, makes cost-saving reforms difficult if not impossible. Some background: In the early 1960s, many private transit companies were being taken over by state or city governments. The rise of the automobile greatly had reduced the commercial viability of these networks, yet then as now they were seen as important public services. Private transit companies were widely unionized at the time, but public sector unions were rare. There was a (quaint-sounding by contemporary standards) concern that taking agencies public would serve as a form of union-busting. So the law required that agencies which receive federal funding, which was essentially all of them, to protect collective bargaining rights, guarantee re-employment of workers who lost their jobs, and safeguard employees 'against a worsening of their positions.'
The upshot is that not only do transit agencies face all the usual obstacles to making their workforce more efficient, they are in many respects prohibited from doing so.
For example, there are basically two ways that a transit agency can provide bus service. The standard way in the U.S. is that the transit agency owns and maintains the buses and employs the drivers. In the rest of the world, however, it is more common for the transit agency to act as a contractor: It draws up the service map and frequency it wants, and lets private companies bid on the job. As a striking paper published in 2017 notes, by fully switching to a contracting model, U.S. transit agencies could reduce bus operating costs by 30% with no reduction in service. That sounds like an almost ridiculously large cost saving. Yet the result doesn't stem from any magic privatization fairy dust — it's simply that union contracts pay bus drivers (and other transit employees) above-market wages. So transit agencies could privatize in order to avoid the union premium and save money. Or they could deprive workers of their collective bargaining rights and save money. Except that under federal law, they can't actually do either of those things.
In the longer term, of course, there is incredible promise in autonomous driving. Right now in San Francisco, Phoenix and Los Angeles, it's possible to ride in a driverless taxi. It will soon be possible in other cities. Creating a driverless car that works is a difficult engineering challenge. A self-driving train, by contrast, is fairly trivial — it turns on tracks and does not need to steer around objects or even engage with other vehicles except to have an emergency stopping function. Precisely because the driverless train is a much simpler problem, the technology is neither new nor particularly exotic. The subway systems of Dubai and Copenhagen are fully automated, and the Paris Metro is partially so. Automated train systems are used in many US airports. Automated trains provide a kind of double dividend — they are both cheaper to operate and, since they can drive safely with less spacing between them, allow for more frequent service.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
2 hours ago
- The National
World reacts to US strikes on Iran
World leaders on Sunday condemned the US decision to launch strikes against three nuclear facilities in Iran. US President Donald Trump on Saturday said the military had bombed Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan, bringing to an end days of speculation about whether America would become directly involved in the Iran-Israel conflict. UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres said he was "gravely alarmed' by the US strikes on the sites. "This is a dangerous escalation in a region already on the edge – and a direct threat to international peace and security,' he said in a statement on X. "I call on member states to de-escalate and to uphold their obligations under the UN Charter and other rules of international law.' In the US Congress, Democrats attacked Mr Trump for the decision. Democratic House minority leader Hakeem Jeffries criticised the strike. 'President Trump misled the country about his intentions, failed to seek congressional authorisation for the use of military force and risks American entanglement in a potentially disastrous war in the Middle East,' he said in a statement. Even pro-Trump Republicans had strong words against the decision. Marjorie Taylor Greene, a leading Make America Great Again Republican isolationist congresswoman, wrote in a post on X that "Israel is a nuclear armed nation. This is not our fight. Peace is the answer.' Other Republicans, however, came out strongly in support of Mr Trump's decision, with House Speaker Mike Johnson saying that the President "gave Iran's leader every opportunity to make a deal, but Iran refused to commit to a nuclear disarmament agreement'. And the head of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator Roger Wicks, said: "Our commander-in-chief has made a deliberate – and correct – decision to eliminate the existential threat posed by the Iranian regime'. Senator Tom Cotton said Mr Trump "made the right call and the ayatollahs should recall his warning not to target Americans'. In Israel, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu thanked Mr Trump for ordering the strikes. "First comes strength, then comes peace,' he said. "And tonight, President Trump and the United States acted with a lot of strength.' Yoav Gallant, Israel's former defence minister, said that US President Donald Trump had taken "a bold decision' in attacking Iran. "The world is now a safer place,' he said in a post on X. Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi called the US strikes 'outrageous' and said they will have 'everlasting consequences'. 'The United States, a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, has committed a grave violation of the UN Charter, international law and the NPT (Non-Proliferation Treaty) by attacking Iran's peaceful nuclear installations,' he said on X. 'Each and every member of the UN must be alarmed over this extremely dangerous, lawless and criminal behaviour.' Hamas condemned the "blatant US aggression'. "The Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) condemns in the strongest terms the blatant US aggression against the territory and sovereignty of the Islamic Republic of Iran,' the group said in a statement. "This brutal aggression is a dangerous escalation,' it added, calling the attack "a flagrant violation of international law, and a direct threat to international peace and security'.
Middle East Eye
2 days ago
- Middle East Eye
Israel blocks thousands of Palestinians from performing Friday prayers at Al-Aqsa Mosque
Israeli forces prevented thousands of Palestinians from performing Friday prayers at Al-Aqsa Mosque, tightening their week-long shutdown on the religious site amid hostilities with Iran. Israeli soldiers were stationed around the outer gates of Al-Aqsa Mosque and the gates of the Old City of Jerusalem early on Friday, where they stopped thousands of Palestinians from entering, sources told Middle East Eye. They said that less than 500 people managed to make it through to the prayer areas and courtyard within Al-Aqsa, a fraction of the number that usually attend the holy site. Despite heavy restrictions on their daily lives, tens of thousands of Palestinians normally attend Friday prayers at Al-Aqsa each week. But since 13 July, the mosque has been completely closed off, in the largest shutdown since the Covid-19 pandemic. New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters Israel has tried to defend the decision, saying it is based on public safety due to Iranian missile strikes on Israel. Palestinians, however, fear that the conflict is being exploited to impose lasting changes on the status quo at the revered site. Earlier this week, Israeli authorities said they had opened two gates and would allow a partial reopening of the mosque. However, a senior source from within the mosque, who spoke anonymously to MEE due to fear of reprisals from Israeli authorities, said the announcement was misleading. He estimated that for every hundred trying to enter the mosque, they were letting in one. "In short, Al-Aqsa is empty. Even the staff are few in number," he said. The source said that the gates that workers were allowed to use were being changed frequently by Israeli forces, and were often very far apart in distance. 'The message Israel wants... is that it has complete control over the mosque, just as it has control over Tel Aviv' - source within Al-Aqsa He added that due to the arbitrariness of which gates were opened, he had to walk two kilometres to park his car and reach his office, and then a further 1.5km to enter the mosque to pray. As well as closing gates into the mosque, Israeli forces also closed off entrances into the Old City, restricting the ability of Palestinians who live outside of the city's gates from entering Al-Aqsa. 'The message Israel wants from closing the mosque completely and opening it partially is that it has complete control over the mosque, just as it has control over Tel Aviv,' the senior source said. Residents told MEE earlier this week that while the mosque was under lockdown, Israelis had unlimited access to the Western Wall Plaza, close to Al-Aqsa's Mughrabi Gate. "If people don't wake up quickly and push to change the situation, we'll find ourselves facing a new reality," said Fakhri Abu Diab, an activist and expert on Jerusalem affairs. 'The public is being conditioned to accept closures,' said Abu Diab. 'They want to diminish the sanctity of Al-Aqsa in people's minds, to make it seem normal that it's shut down.' In 2014 and then in 2017, Israeli forces briefly closed the mosque amid heightened tensions in Jerusalem. The 2014 closure was described as a 'declaration of war' by Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas at the time. Before that, no such days-long closure has been recorded since Israel's occupation of the city in 1967. Israeli settlers and far-right activists raid Al-Aqsa Mosque almost daily, with their numbers steadily increasing over the past two decades. In recent months, they have raised the Israeli flag and regularly performed Jewish religious practices in the eastern section of Al-Aqsa Mosque complex, in an area known as Bab al-Rahma. Both actions were previously blocked by Israeli authorities, fearing a Palestinian backlash. Unsolicited visits, prayers, and rituals by non-Muslims at Al-Aqsa are prohibited under decades-old international agreements known as the status quo. Israeli authorities and settlers frequently violate these norms.
The National
2 days ago
- The National
Does Trump have the authority to declare war on Iran?
President Donald Trump's announcement that he would make a decision in two weeks about whether to directly involve US forces in Israel's war on Iran has reignited a longstanding constitutional debate on exactly what military powers America's leader has. The President has indicated in recent days that the US could carry out strikes against Iran in support of its ally. Israel began attacking Iran on June 13, saying it aimed to prevent its archenemy from developing nuclear weapons. Iran retaliated with missile and drone strikes on Israel. According to the US Constitution, it's the Congress - the House of Representatives and the Senate - that has the power to declare war. This stretches back to 1973, when Congress passed the War Powers Act - also referred to as the War Powers Resolution - which sought to prevent the executive branch from declaring war without congressional approval. It was initiated shortly after a series of presidents unilaterally escalated the Vietnam war, specifically when Richard Nixon ordered the bombing and invasion of Cambodia without a green light from Congress. Yet there are several loopholes that various US presidents have used since the passage of the War Powers Act to exercise their ability to influence military policy. There's nothing in the legislation that prevents the White House from assisting other countries, with the current example being Israel. Some legal experts have also pointed out that the US Constitution, specifically Article II Section 2, states that "[the] President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States" - that is, the White House has a legal precedent to try and mobilise the US military to some extent. "There is a constitutional ambiguity between the role of Commander-in-Chief and the congressional power to declare war," said Timothy Kneeland, a professor of history, politics and law at Nazareth University in upstate New York. Prof Kneeland said that shortly after the September 11, 2001, terror attacks, George W Bush, president at the time, sought and obtained authorisation from Congress to use military force in both Afghanistan and Iraq, These so-called Authorisations to Use Military Force (AUMF) have since been used to justify actions against ISIS and Hezbollah, as well. "It may be that President Trump will use this as a pretext should he decide to attack Iran, which has been identified with supporting Hezbollah, listed as a terrorist organisation in the US," Prof Kneeland said, noting that laws passed after 9/11 blurred clarity on who could declare war. It could also be a matter of semantics, with the US providing assistance to Israel without ever mentioning war. Yet there is already pushback from Democrats and Republicans, as politicians seek to head off any potential unilateral decision by Mr Trump to move ahead with military action against Iran. In the Senate, Democratic Senator Tim Kaine introduced a resolution seeking to make debate and a vote compulsory before any military strike on Iran. And in the House of Representatives, Republican Thomas Massie introduced a similar resolution related to the situation in Iran. Yet resolutions like this, compared to laws, often lack enforcement mechanisms. Prof Kneeland also points out that constitutionally, Mr Trump could easily block them. "These are subject to President Trump's veto power and would require a two-thirds majority to override the presidential veto," he said. "With both the House and Senate in the hands of the Republicans, who overwhelmingly support President Trump, this seems highly unlikely." So, even with the 1973 War Powers Act, the ball appears to be in Mr Trump's court. Iran, meanwhile, is holding talks with European powers as its war with Israel enters a second week.
