People scorn and deride public transit. Viewed as having filthy infrastructure and stigmatized as an option only for the poor, the vast majority of Americans opt to drive cars instead.

Despite these normalized prejudices, public transit poses many unique advantages over cars.

By its very nature, public transit cannot suffer traffic delays. Systems like Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) and metros run on their own circuits and thus cannot be affected by path congestion. Any delays result from construction and maintenance, all of which is planned for and announced beforehand.

The possibility of injury in a public transit system is also much lower. Services such as BART run on schedules and rarely crash. Furthermore, passengers do not have to fear road rage or intoxicated drivers. In the case of buses, drivers are highly trained professionals far less likely to crash.

Finally, many of the current complaints with public transit could be resolved with greater government funding. Adding BART cars would reduce waiting times. Hiring security guards makes public transportation safer. And simple refurbishments improve cosmetic damages and sterility.

While none of these modifications are free, neither is using automobiles. Car users must take out loans to purchase their vehicle, pay constant upkeep for maintenance and gas and pay off the occasional parking ticket. Considering these “hidden” costs, public transit can be an equitable if not cheaper alternative to cars.

Usage of cars also incurs non-monetary costs. Automobile accidents still rank as fourth highest cause of death in America, and all cars contribute to global warming through emissions. Even electric cars contribute to global warming through the burning of fossil fuels to generate their electricity.

Public transport is imperfect, but we often dismiss it immediately when choosing how to travel. It deserves more consideration as a viable means of transit.

This piece was originally published in the pages of the Winged Post on Jan. 27, 2016.