Durham's Free Transit Initiative: Boosting Ridership

If you're in Durham, North Carolina, and haven't heard of their free transit initiative yet, you're living under a pretty big rock akin to Sisyphus' rock. The city launched a fare-free public transit initiative, and the impact has been nothing short of remarkable.

Whether you're commuting to work, heading to school, or just exploring the town, riding the bus is not only easy on your wallet—it’s also a step toward a more connected city.

More Riders, More Jobs

As we enter the second year of GoDurham's "fare-free" public transit program, ridership in Durham has seen a significant boost, and it's helping ridership numbers recover after the significant decline caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. It's not just about saving money—although that's always a plus—but also about creating more equitable access to jobs and other opportunities. By removing the cost barrier, more people can get to work, school, and other essential services. This is especially critical for those who don't own a car or can't afford the rising costs of gas and maintenance.

Environmental Impact

The environmental impact of increased public transit use is another reason Durham's initiative is turning heads. More people on buses means fewer cars on the road, which eventually translates to reduced traffic congestion and lower carbon emissions as more people consider getting out of their cars and riding public transit.

The Federal Connection

Durham's free transit initiative wouldn't be possible without strong federal support. The city has been able to secure a series of federal grants, thanks in no small part to its close relationship with the U.S. Department of Transportation. At Durham's recent State of the City address, Mayor Leo Williams casually dropped that he is on texting basis with Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg. Good move Mayor Williams! We need all the resourcefulness we can get when trying to increase access to public transit.

A Long-Term Sustainability Question

While the fare-free public transit program has made a splash, the question on my mind is: how sustainable is it? Funding from federal grants can only go so far, and maintaining a program of this scale requires consistent financial support. The challenge for Durham is to find a way to keep the initiative going without sacrificing service quality or overburdening taxpayers. This uncertainty makes long-term planning complex, but the city is committed to exploring creative solutions.

Durham's fare-free public transit initiative is a bold move, but whether it's financially sustainable in the long run is still up in the air. The program has shown that it can boost ridership and reduce carbon emissions, but long-term viability depends on finding stable funding sources. As the city navigates these challenges, the rest of us can sit back, relax, and enjoy the free ride while it lasts.

Early 1900s Transportation Research Questions

My writing process is a mixture of general topic curiosity, subject matter knowledge, personal perspectives, and tons of research that all gets processed together into thoughts and sentences that eventually make sense and tell a story.

My current writing mission involves writing an article for a transportation think tank about transportation in the early 1900s and the sitting U.S. President.

To give structure these are the three overarching big picture questions functioning as my north star:

1. What did our transportation system look in the early 1900s?

2. Who was William Taft?

3. How did President Taft shape the transportation landscape?

Here are some of the questions that are steering my research curiosity:

1. What were the primary Pre-WWI transportation modes?

2. How did people travel between 1909 - 1913?

3. What was happening in transportation innovation or travel in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and DC between 1909 - 1913?

4. What was going on with the goods movement?

5. How was the automobile evolution coming along?

6. How did Taft travel?

7. How did Hearst travel?

8. Had the airplane been invented yet?

9. What materials were used to make streets?

10. What major bridges were being built during this time?

11. What did leisure travel look like across socio-economic classes?

12. Was this pre, during or post the Titanic sinking?

13. What were the major immigration trends at the time?

14. What was the major transportation technology of the time?

15. Was there any major transportation innovations or policy during Taft's presidency?

16. Which U.S. cities had subways, street cars, or metro systems?

17. How long did it take to travel from DC to New York?

18. Was it common or allowed for women to travel alone between cities?

19. How many railroad companies existed and where did they travel to?

20. What types of bicycles existed and who were the major bicycle makers?
    

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5E6CkFwBN9k

The Clean Air Act, Did it Move the Needle?

Since 1970 many have wondered if the Clean Air Act has made a difference in reducing air pollution despite population growth. However, the answer isn't as simple as a "Yes" or "No.

On the one hand, some anti-environmental circles believe there is not an air pollution problem to fix (as they drive their Teslas to keep up with the Joneses) and are unsure why it was even a policy. Then there are others that think we already have too many environmental policies in place that are making things more expensive than they need to be.

On the other hand, some environmental circles believe the Clean Air Act has made a difference, and then others believe that it has only benefited some and has systemically exposed communities of color to more air pollution. In my opinion, it has made a difference, but the benefits have not been equal across the board especially for low income communities.

And while many have studied the data to try an prove their respective cases, the data in this field is a little extra tricky and skeptics abound. There are constant attempts to debunk the notion it has helped improve air quality and to undermine new supporting policies. However, a new study on hard to dilute data has come out this month.

A group of 9 social scientists, led by Yanelli Nunez, PhD from Columbia University's Mailman School of Public Health analyzed various data sets covering a 40 year time span, going all the way back to the beginning of the Clean Air Act in 1970.

Their study, An environmental justice analysis of air pollution emissions in the United States from 1970 to 2010, was recently published in Nature Communications on January 17, 2024 and they evaluated air pollution changes in 6 core source generation sectors:

1. Transportation: nitrogen oxides [NOx]

2. Agriculture: ammonia [NH3]

3. Residential: particulate organic carbon [POC]

4. Commercial: nitrogen oxides [NOx]

5. Industry: sulfide dioxide [SO2]

6. Energy: nitrogen oxides [NOx] & sulfide dioxide [SO2]

Overall the study finds that the U.S. has seen reductions in air pollution emissions from various pollution sources since the Clean Air Act was enacted in 1970. The Clean Air Act has in fact helped to substantially improve air quality in the U.S., which is something to celebrate. The study's findings also validate environmental justice concerns that some communities bear a higher burden of air pollution, and more importantly, it provides hard to dispute evidence for environmental justice naysers.

Specifically the data reveals the following key findings:

• Median family income was a driver in air pollution reductions in the major pollution sources.

• Counties with median family incomes above $75,000 had larger declines in industry, energy, transportation, residential and commercial related emissions.

• Racial and ethnic air pollution disparities exist, particularly in the industry and energy pollution generation sectors.

• Mitigating traffic-related pollution in the most burdened areas will be key in reducing current racial, ethnic and economic disparities and preventing them from getting worse as a result of the current electric vehicle adoption trends among higher income households.

In an interview with Columbia Magazine, one of the researchers, Marianthi Kioumourtzoglou, notes that in the study they "provide information about potential racial/ethnic and socioeconomic inequalities in air pollution sources," which can inform future policy development and complement local-level analysis.

Nunez also shares that "policies specifically targeting reductions in overburdened populations could support more just reductions in air pollution and reduce disparities in air pollution exposure." The lessons learned from the 53 years of the Clean Air Act should be used to address the fact that air quality has not improved for everyone, especially as we develop policies to transition to renewable energy resources, "which will have a collateral impact on air quality and, as a result, on public health.