Relationships between Public Transit and Employment
Constantly looking at improving public transit in an intelligent, well-researched way has a critical impact in many people’s lives.
Many people depend on public transit to get to work. That is common knowledge. But how many of us consider the relationship between public transit and employment? It is not a simple one.
With the existence of precarious work, people considering whether to apply for these jobs must also consider the accessibility of the job itself (Premji, 2017). Hence, people have foregone good career opportunities — or even quit jobs they already had — due to poor accessibility to transit. This hurts not only individuals and their families, but also potentially employers who might have otherwise hired a great employee.
More specifically, Premji (2017) found these barriers to career opportunities tended to happen when, as those interviewed noted, “commuting difficulties were amplified by the delays, infrequency, unavailability and high cost of public transportation”. This finding also arises because housing near popular transit routes is significantly more expensive than housing located far from public transit routes.
Premji (2017) also mentions a few other facts. First, public transit tends to focus on being reliable and rapid during the two rush hours of the day. However, many people who work at precarious jobs also tend to commute during non-rush/non-peak hours.
Safety can also be a concern as many of these people (particularly women) work odd hours, and public transit is not as efficient late at night. Interestingly, Premji (2017) informs us the majority of individuals who would consider applying to precarious jobs had university degrees, were married with children, and a household income of less than $25,000 a year.
In addition, the author indicates that if these people did have jobs, they were often based on race and gender, and many of them were also extremely overqualified for their position. However, since many of them also came from other countries, their education was not recognized.
What this all indicates is the presence or absence of public transit, as well as its frequency can have significant impacts on employment status and level of happiness.
Premji (2017) has a few recommendations given the above findings. For one thing, transit fares should be lower during off-peak (non-rush) hours. Additionally, low-income urban areas should have significantly greater access to public transit, and a substantially greater number of bus shelters for low-income urban areas.
Moving on to a study conducted by Allen and Farber (2019), as there often is a fair amount of transit accessibility in inner-city areas, the authors find that increasing the frequency of the existing transit available is a simple way to substantially improve transit services for a significant number of people. This is important because aiming to improve on existing transit services is needed and is key to progress.
The authors suggest advancing present service could be done in a couple of ways. One way, as done in many areas in Calgary, is to introduce some buses that have routes with limited stops and/or bus-only lanes, which means a faster trip for those traveling in areas where those buses stop. Buses with more direct bus routes to major nearby employment areas or popular urban destinations may be a way of upgrading transit for those who live in suburban areas.
These researchers also suggest adding more frequencies to existing bus routes, as well as two other means of improving public transit: On-Demand buses for areas that do not currently have traditional bus service; and simply increasing public transit in lower income areas that do not have a lot of transit availability.
One unfortunate reality found by Allen and Farber (2019) is there is not a lot of capital for public transit, but they also indicate it is crucial to increase public funding in public transit. Two possible ways to do so include changing the focus of government spending toward more spending on public transit; and increasing taxes, such as introducing a congestion tax and/or a gasoline tax.
Moving on, other pertinent facts are derived from Deboosere and El-Geneidy (2018), who surprisingly argue a city’s size does not fully predict average accessibility levels.
Other information shared by the authors that accessibility to transit services by vulnerable populations tends to be overestimated in Canadian cities because it rigidly focuses on the ability of these people to get to low-income jobs. They point out these assessments need to be understood, and also that some people who live in low-income areas are actually highly educated, so they are looking for careers in less densely populated areas. This is a fact those planning and managing public transit systems in Canada should consider.
Both Deboosere and El-Geneidy (2018) and Allen and Farber (2019) note that those planning and managing public transit systems in Canada should get to know their riders much better, to more accurately match their needs efficiently and effectively.
Another piece of knowledge they should consider is these evaluations do not consider that some vulnerable populations may be willing to live in less densely populated urban areas so they can live in larger homes, and in safer neighbourhoods.
Both realities mentioned are elements that substantially impact a person’s travel time.
Finally, Collins and Agarwal (2015) state that:
Transit is a more feasible option for most Canadian commuters who live too far from work to walk or cycle, yet public transit usage in midsized Canadian cities has historically remained low due to inefficient transit service.
Yet, as we have seen from above, public transit is of extreme relevance in the lives of many people, so this is not a good thing. The authors also find that even if transit is improved in less populated areas of a city, then it will increase ridership.
In the end, we can point out a few things. First, if people managing, planning, and designing public transit want to understand their clientele better, then they need to do more specific and advanced research.
Second, generally speaking, public transit in Canada requires more capital to operate better as most systems offer inefficient service. It also requires raising taxes and getting governments to invest more in public transit, instead of other types of infrastructure such as highways.
Finally, and most importantly, public transit is a necessity for many people, and it influences many people’s employment opportunities. Therefore, constantly looking at improving public transit in an intelligent, well-researched way has a critical impact in many people’s lives.
With all this in mind, we see public transit is a big part of many lives. However, better research on the riders, the costs involved, and how to cover these costs best all need to be considered. And ideally, a logical balance among these factors needs to be reached.
Thank you for reading to the end, and we hope you found value in what you read here. We welcome any and all constructive feedback, either in the comment section below (for paid subscribers) or on Substack Notes.