In the current discussion about whether or not to grant subsidies to public transport have heard arguments for and against, of all kinds, "in other parts of the world is subsidized" or "government ought not intervene in markets. " Lost after the pre-election struggles have been the technical and economic reasons which justify - in terms of efficiency! - Subsidies. In this column we want to salvage from these basic reasons to apply them to the current situation.
If a hundred people decide to use their cars to get to work, produce a lot more congestion than when on public transport pollute more, will generate more noise and use more fuel, as will dozens of other rather than one or two. Then, to encourage the use of cars in the city, simultaneously promotes pollution, noise, congestion and the constant pressure to build more roads, resulting in less public spaces. In short, it is aggressively promoting a city for its inhabitants.
Moreover, as more people use public transportation, the lower the waiting times and walking to bus stops. This can only be achieved if the design of frequencies and routes of public transport meets demand without overcrowding, as it should be. Thus, each new user of public transportation decreases the total travel time of all others, bringing benefits to other users, while allowing to generate substantial damage to congest and pollute less. In addition, the best public transport service could attract other car users, creating a virtuous circle.
The problem is that neither the benefits or harm caused to others are perceived by people when making travel decisions, leading to greater car use it socially efficient. Therefore it is necessary to subsidize the public transport fare and charging for congestion, it is to correct the perceptions of costs and benefits of each alternative, so as to create consistency between individual decisions and the social optimum. The cost of not implementing a policy of subsidies is ultimately a cost in quality of life of people, with impacts on health and other sectors.
Transantiago The initial plan never contemplated subsidies, despite techniques that raised voices. It was only after the resulting disaster and persistent deficit, caused in the dogma of self-financing, this discussion became important. No wonder then that there are those who wonder whether the subsidies will not cover but an attempt to perpetuate inefficiencies or malpractice. But these concerns should not overshadow the public transportation systems require, justifiably, levels of subsidy today recognized as necessary by many actors of our national reality. It seems that it entered into a perverse game of mistrust, some do not trust that subsidies will be used to re-design what went wrong, and the perpetrators believe that rejection is only for electoral reasons or ideological stubbornness .
This is a difficult but very important moment for the future quality of life in our cities. In our opinion, it is vital that, first, our parliamentarians consider that permanent subsidies to public transport are technically required for proper system design. But on the other hand, it is also essential that the delivery of these subsidies go hand in hand with a commitment and a detailed and explicit government to redesign those aspects that have malfunctioned, due to the initial blindness of his plan. Both elements will generate the necessary dialogue to ensure that what is best for everyone, a reality. The government and our representatives in parliament have the floor. Leonardo Basso
Sotz (PhD, U. British Columbia)
Cristián Cortés Carrillo (PhD, U. Calif. Irvine)
Sergio Jara Diaz (PhD, MIT)
Francisco Martinez Concha (PhD, U. Leeds)
Munizaga Marcela Muñoz (PhD, PUC)
Transportation Engineering Division, University of Chile.
