Report on the Public Transit Funding Crisis in Pennsylvania and its Implications for Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

Executive Summary

Pennsylvania’s public transit systems are confronting a severe funding crisis that threatens their operational viability. Decades of underinvestment and the expiration of key funding sources have pushed 53 transit systems across 67 counties to a breaking point. The subsequent service cuts and fare increases directly undermine the state’s progress toward several United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly those related to poverty reduction, health, education, economic growth, inequality, and sustainable communities.

Analysis of the Crisis and its Impact on Sustainable Infrastructure (SDG 9 & SDG 11)

Public transit is essential infrastructure, critical for the functioning of sustainable cities and communities. The current situation in Pennsylvania presents a direct challenge to the principles of SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure) and SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities).

• Systemic Failure: The reliance on short-term financial patches has proven unsustainable. Agencies are now forced to dismantle services, as evidenced by SEPTA’s recent budget, which will significantly reduce transit availability.
• Community Disconnection: Service cuts, such as the elimination of weekend service on Route 322 to Hershey, sever vital links connecting communities to employment, healthcare, and recreation. This isolates communities and contradicts the goal of creating inclusive and resilient urban and rural areas.
• Increased Congestion and Pollution: A decline in public transit will force more commuters into private vehicles, leading to increased traffic congestion and air pollution. This outcome is counterproductive to building sustainable communities and negatively impacts public health, opposing the aims of SDG 11 and SDG 13 (Climate Action).

Socio-Economic Consequences and Setbacks for SDG 1, SDG 8, and SDG 10

The erosion of public transit services has profound socio-economic consequences, disproportionately affecting vulnerable populations and hindering progress toward reducing poverty and inequality.

1. Threat to Decent Work and Economic Growth (SDG 8): Reliable transit is fundamental for a functioning economy. It connects workers to jobs and supports major economic events. The crisis jeopardizes access to employment for countless individuals and threatens the stability of thousands of unionized jobs within the transit sector itself.
2. Exacerbation of Inequalities (SDG 10): Public transit is a lifeline for many Pennsylvanians. In Philadelphia, over a third of households lack car access, and in Pittsburgh, nearly 60% of riders commute via transit. Service cuts disproportionately harm essential workers, seniors, students, and people with disabilities, limiting their mobility and access to opportunity.
3. Impediment to Poverty Reduction (SDG 1): For low-income families, affordable public transportation is a key tool for accessing jobs, services, and upward economic mobility. Eliminating this option can trap individuals and families in cycles of poverty.

Impacts on Health and Education (SDG 3 & SDG 4)

The funding shortfall directly compromises access to essential public services, representing a significant setback for health and education goals.

• Good Health and Well-being (SDG 3): The reduction of bus routes limits access to critical healthcare facilities, such as the Penn State Hershey Medical Center, for patients and medical staff. Furthermore, increased vehicle emissions from former transit riders could worsen air quality and increase rates of respiratory illnesses like asthma in already overburdened communities.
• Quality Education (SDG 4): Students at all levels rely on public transit to attend classes. Service cuts and fare hikes create significant barriers to education, potentially impacting attendance and academic achievement.

Conclusion and Recommendations

The public transit crisis in Pennsylvania is not merely a logistical or budgetary problem; it is a critical threat to sustainable development. Addressing this requires immediate and sustained political will.

Recommendations:

1. Establish Stable, Long-Term Funding: A transition from temporary fixes to a permanent, stable funding model is imperative to ensure the long-term viability of public transit as essential infrastructure (SDG 9).
2. Recognize Transit as a Public Good: Lawmakers must treat public transit as a public responsibility essential for economic growth, social equity, and environmental sustainability, aligning state policy with the comprehensive vision of the SDGs.
3. Prioritize Investment for Sustainable Growth: Investing in a robust transit system supports family-sustaining jobs, reduces carbon emissions (SDG 13), and ensures that all communities have access to the opportunities necessary for growth and prosperity.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

The article on the Pennsylvania public transit crisis touches upon several interconnected Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The primary issues of transit funding cuts, service reductions, and the subsequent impact on communities directly relate to the following goals:

• SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being: The article connects transit cuts to negative health outcomes. It explicitly mentions that lack of bus service prevents access to major medical centers like the Penn State Hershey Medical Center for patients and workers. Furthermore, it warns that a decline in public transit will lead to more cars, “increasing pollution, and driving up asthma rates in already overburdened communities.”
• SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth: The article highlights the dual role of public transit in the economy. Firstly, it is essential for a functioning workforce, stating that without it, “Workers will lose jobs they can no longer reach.” Secondly, the transit system itself is a source of employment. The author notes that investing in transit means “investing in good, family-sustaining jobs” for mechanics, operators, and other workers, and that a robust system “would support thousands of union jobs.”
• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities: The article emphasizes that the negative impacts of transit cuts are not distributed equally. It points out that public transit is an essential service for vulnerable and marginalized populations, including “essential workers, seniors, students, and people with disabilities.” It also provides data that “more than one in three households lack car access” in Philadelphia, showing how transit failures disproportionately affect those with lower economic status.
• SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities: This is the most central SDG addressed. The core of the article is about the impending failure of public transportation infrastructure. The author describes public transit as a “reliable, affordable alternative that keeps traffic down and connects us all.” The crisis threatens the sustainability of communities by eliminating routes, raising fares, and cutting off entire communities from basic transportation, thereby undermining the goal of creating inclusive and resilient urban and rural areas.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

Based on the specific issues discussed, the following SDG targets are directly relevant:

1. Target 11.2: “By 2030, provide access to safe, affordable, accessible and sustainable transport systems for all, improving road safety, notably by expanding public transport, with special attention to the needs of those in vulnerable situations, women, children, persons with disabilities and older persons.” The article is a direct plea to prevent the collapse of such a system. It details how service cuts and fare hikes will make transit less affordable and accessible, particularly for the vulnerable groups listed in the target (seniors, students, people with disabilities).
2. Target 8.5: “By 2030, achieve full and productive employment and decent work for all women and men, including for young people and persons with disabilities, and equal pay for work of equal value.” The article supports this target by arguing that reliable transit is a prerequisite for many people to maintain employment (“Workers will lose jobs they can no longer reach”). It also frames investment in transit as a direct creator of “good, family-sustaining jobs.”
3. Target 3.9: “By 2030, substantially reduce the number of deaths and illnesses from hazardous chemicals and air, water and soil pollution and contamination.” The article implies a direct link to this target by warning that transit failures will lead to “more cars…worsening traffic, increasing pollution, and driving up asthma rates.” This connects the lack of sustainable transport to negative health outcomes caused by air pollution.
4. Target 10.2: “By 2030, empower and promote the social, economic and political inclusion of all, irrespective of age, sex, disability, race, colour, ethnicity, origin, religion or economic or other status.” The article’s focus on how transit cuts disproportionately harm seniors, students, people with disabilities, and low-income households (those without car access) directly relates to this target. The loss of transit is presented as a loss of opportunity and a barrier to social and economic inclusion.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

Yes, the article mentions or implies several quantitative and qualitative indicators that can be used to measure the status of public transportation and its alignment with the SDGs:

• Proportion of population with convenient access to public transport: This is a key indicator for Target 11.2. The article implies a negative trend through examples like the elimination of the “Route 322 bus” and the general statement that “More routes will be eliminated,” which reduces the population’s access.
• Affordability of public transport: The article explicitly states that “Fares will rise,” which is a direct indicator of decreasing affordability, relevant to Target 11.2.
• Public transit ridership and dependency: The article provides specific data points that serve as indicators, such as “nearly 60 percent of riders commute by transit” in Pittsburgh and transit agencies providing “over 45,000 rides every day” in smaller counties. It also notes that “more than one in three households lack car access” in Philadelphia, indicating high dependency.
• Number of jobs supported by the transit sector: As an indicator for Target 8.5, the article mentions that a robust system “would support thousands of union jobs,” implying that job numbers in this sector are a measure of progress.
• Air quality and related health outcomes: An indicator for Target 3.9 is the mention of “increasing pollution, and driving up asthma rates” as a direct consequence of reduced transit service and increased car usage.
• Level of public investment in transit: The entire article is a call for “stable, sustained funding.” The level of investment is a critical input indicator for achieving all the identified targets. The article points to the expiration of “a major source of dedicated transit funding” as a negative indicator.

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: yahoo.com