 work towards a just and equitable transition off fossil fuels, and in the case of California, provide alternatives to petroleum driven transportation for all.
As daunting as this challenge may appear, other nations have already started research, investment, and policy formulation to shift transportation from fossil fuel dependence to renewable energy. Research on transportation in the European Union has studied alternative fuel sources and concluded that the most cost-competitive option comparable to petroleum is electric power. Further work from Chinese researchers shows that solar and wind are the best options for investment. However, solar cars are neither a pragmatic nor equitable policy strategy for transportation electrification. Despite any government subsidies, gas taxes, and insurance benefits offsetting a higher car sticker price, this strategy falls hard on low-income communities, who in California spend 6.1 per cent of income on commuting compared to a 3.8 per cent national average.
In California, workers depend heavily upon affordable transportation to navigate many highways that are a part of everyday life. In cities like Los Angeles, fossil fuel-powered transportation is the order of the day, but means of transportation vary dramatically across racial and income divides. While metro and car users are typically middle class, around 88 percent of bus riders are people of color with an average income of $15,000. Possibly due to the imbalances of capital and power between socioeconomic classes, public transportation is seldom expanded with the needs of the working class in mind and is often oriented around the desires of the upper middle class.
Metro expansion for the middle class is typically prioritized rather than increasing underfunded bus lines, but metro officials often deny any funding bias. However, union advocates disagree, arguing that authorities “are massively reducing bus service” in an inequitable fashion. Additionally, despite promises to expand green transit, there is no consideration for displacement, the affordable housing crisis, or the wellbeing of low income communities. Given past patterns of development and displacement, it’s clear that gentrification is most rampant in neighborhoods with rapidly expanding public transit hubs. These low income communities are pushed further away from affordable transit, decent schools, and job opportunities, in what has been called the new urban crisis
So where do we go from here? These issues are potential roadblocks to a just transition in the transportation sector.
While many consider metro expansion the obvious solution to automobile dependency, this policy historically displaces low income populations established along metro lines. Alternatively, research points to investment in the public bus, as it is crucial in connecting working class communities while ignored by white commuters. Electrification and expansion of existing bus routes addresses both fossil fuel dependency and transportation needs for families who can’t participate in more expensive solutions to climate change, like buying a Tesla or solar panels.
There is support for expanding and decarbonizing local bus routes, particularly in low income communities finding job revitalization directly from green technology development and in economic opportunities afforded by increased mobility. This creates opportunities for skills based jobs, opening up the potential for unions to provide job training in underserved labor markets. Unionization would also allow workers to negotiate for better benefits, from wages to healthcare. Additionally, frontline housing activists and grassroots organizations in cities like Los Angeles could could collaborate with lawmakers on strategies like bus rapid transit to ensure fast, safe bus routes specifically planned for low income neighborhoods. Pro-climate legislators like Kevin De Leon would do well to work with these organizations to create climate-oriented, socially just urban planning. Green, accessible, and affordable transportation offers a means for wor