SEPTA’s recent service changes have sparked a major lawsuit! Are the city’s most vulnerable being unfairly targeted by transit cuts and looming fare hikes? A new legal battle is shining a light on who truly bears the burden of these decisions. What do you think about the impact on daily commuters?
A significant legal challenge has been mounted against SEPTA’s recent service reductions and proposed fare increases, asserting that these measures unfairly disadvantage Black, Latino, and low-income riders while appearing to shield wealthier commuters who rely on Regional Rail services. This lawsuit brings critical urban policy decisions under intense scrutiny, questioning the true motivations behind the transit agency’s operational changes and their profound social impact on Philadelphia residents.
Filed in Philadelphia Common Pleas Court, the complaint outlines how consumer advocate Lance Haver, alongside two long-time SEPTA users, Tennille Hannah and Johndell Gredic, initiated the legal action. Both Hannah and Gredic vividly describe how the elimination or severe overcrowding of their regular bus routes has drastically altered their daily routines, forcing them into less safe or financially burdensome alternatives for essential travel, highlighting a direct impact on transit accessibility.
Leading the legal charge is attorney George Bochetto, a prominent Philadelphia trial lawyer known for his dynamic courtroom presence. Bochetto contends that SEPTA is deliberately fabricating a “fiscal crisis” to exert pressure on state lawmakers for additional funding, effectively using its riders as leverage in a larger political and economic negotiation. His involvement underscores the high-stakes nature of this public transportation dispute.
Crucially, Bochetto’s argument heavily relies on SEPTA’s own internal documentation, stating that the transit agency conducted an equity study that explicitly acknowledged the disparate impact these service cuts would have on racial minorities and low-income communities. This self-admission, he argues, strengthens the case that SEPTA was fully aware of the social inequities its decisions would perpetuate, raising serious questions about responsible urban policy and equitable resource allocation.
Conversely, SEPTA previously stated that its own assessment, performed before the cuts were enacted, indicated that “non-minority routes and non-low-income routes bear a larger share of the overall service reduction.” This counter-narrative suggests a different perspective on the distribution of service changes, though the lawsuit directly challenges its validity and overall impact on vulnerable populations.
Delving into the financial implications, Lance Haver argues that the bus cuts, which are projected to save only $5 million a month, are unnecessary. He suggests that SEPTA possesses sufficient funds, possibly held in PNC Bank, to sustain operations while awaiting the state budget’s passage. Haver claims that instead of prudent financial management, the agency has chosen to penalize riders, believing it will not succeed in its lobbying efforts for increased state funding, thus escalating the debate over public transport cuts.
Beyond the service reductions, the lawsuit also aims to block a substantial 21.5% fare increase slated to commence on September 1. The impending judicial proceedings are expected to include a hearing to determine whether an injunction will be granted, which could temporarily halt both the proposed cuts and the fare hike, offering a temporary reprieve for affected commuters and ensuring continued transit equity discussions.
This is not an isolated incident for SEPTA; the agency has faced similar legal battles in the past. Precedent exists from 2004 and 2007, when lawsuits successfully argued that proposed service reductions and fare adjustments imposed unlawful burdens on minority and low-income riders. These prior cases resulted in court orders compelling the transit agency to reverse its course, providing a historical framework that could influence the outcome of the current legal challenge and reinforce the importance of protecting vulnerable communities in urban policy decisions.
