Public Transit Use Booming, So Why Is It Struggling?

usnews.com:

Is your city's public transit suffering?

Chances are, yes. Ridership on public transportation nationwide has increased exponentially - and is now at its highest level in the past 52 years, according to the Washington Post - but transit systems are struggling to keep up. According to the American Public Transportation Association, ridership rose on 14 of the nation's subway systems (3.5 percent), 20 of 21 commuter rail systems (4.7 percent) and 20 of 26 light-rail systems (8.3 percent). The financial crisis has hit transit hard (I wrote about three systems struggling with their loans, backed by AIG, in October) in particular because many cities made financially risky deals with banks to fund their transit systems. Now, they're finding themselves with no choice other than to make drastic cuts that could leave people across America paying more for buses and subways, or worse - without service.

Read the whole story: usnews.com

Comments

[DMEEPhD]

Where is it writ large that Public Transportation has to turn a profit or even cover it's operating expenses?

Public transportation is a Public Service, provided by the government because that is why we organize and have government: to provide for the masses what individuals and companies cannot.

Does the Military make money? No. It provides a service - our defense. (One supposes that if we allowed our forces to pillage and loot, and bring the loot home it would be profitable.)

Does NASA make money? No, it provides a research basis that has brought innumerable technologies into our everyday lives.

Does the Air Traffic Control System make money? No, but it allows millions of passengers to fly to their destinations using the safest mode of transportation every devised (except for walking).

So why is the United States the only industrialized nation of Earth that expects public transit to make money? Every EU nation subsidizes it's public transportation system. Subsidies are necessary when profit does not exist. We disparage this trend, then raise a hue and cry over how poor our own system is.

Providing efficient public transportation - which includes Air traffic Control, the Interstate Highways, Roads and Bridges, and yes, the Railroads - is just exactly what "government" was intended to do. The large, necessary, and expensive features of our industrial infrastructure that are too large for individuals or companies to provide, and yet who benefits don't just 'trickle down' to everyone. They literally flood our economy with

[socialscientist]

Well said. And do we charge the oil companies every time a soldier invades a country for them? No. So why do we charge the poor urbanite a fare every time they get on a bus and save our planet for us?
We should remove the fares from public transit. http://frepubtra.blogspot.com

[sandiegoconservative]

It is suffering because public transportation stinks. In most areas, that is.

[KillTheMessenger]

It only stinks because you voted not to spend any money on it.

[Myshkin57]

There are many places where it is just not financially viable for the city to fund the type of public transit people would be happy to use. I spend half my time in Chicago and half in a smaller town.

The CTA is far from perfect, but you can get pretty much anywhere in the city without much of a wait. In the smaller town, there is up to an hour between buses because the town is big enough to need mass transit but not big enough to have convenient service. I love mass transit, but I can't use buses that run that infrequently to get around most of the time.

I do not think it's fair to blame the less-than-stellar public transit in some parts of the country on voters. In some places, it just can't be made to work for other reasons.

[fredgladys]

If governments are really concerned about global warming it would seem reasonable to ensure that the public transit system was able to cope with increased demand. If they are having problems financially courtesy of the banks and finance organisations it would be positive on many levels for the government to assist them.
In a number of countries passengers are able to get concessions on their fares, a scheme like this could also help workers who are really doing it tough. This implies that the spread of public transport would need to be increased, once again it would seem to be a good investment as you would need more staff, could reduce emissions, and help the poorest in the community.

[mamacat]

Southern California used to have a light rail mass transit system. It had the most mileage of any such system on the face of the planet, and it also had the most ridership of any such system.
In the mid 20th century, a consortium of Standard Oil (Exxon and Chevron), General Motors, Firestone Tire Co., and a few smaller players, systematically went across the United States buying up light-rail mass transit systems from any metropolitan areas that would sell - they ended up buying almost 50 such mass transit systems. Among America's three largest cities, L.A., Chicago, and New York, only the L.A. city fathers saw fit to sell away their mass transit system.

Of the light rail systems that Standard Oil et.al. purchased, only one is still operating. The defenders of Standard Oil et.al. claim that they were money losing operations, that needed to be shut down anyway. In other words, Standard Oil et.al. were simply doing the public a much needed service when they purchased as many of America's light-rail mass transit systems as they could, and then gradually shut them down.

The 10 miles of the new line built on and under Wilshire Blvd. cost $1 billion per mile to build, whereas 60 years ago Southern California had over 1,000 miles of light rail in operation, from Oxnard to Santa Ana, from Santa Monica to San Bernardino.

[wm1066]

You got that right Mamacat, thanks for the info.
Here in Minneapolis our light rail was dismantled and sold to Mexico, last I heard some of the original streetcars were still in use. The guy that brokered the deal made so much money he became the owner of the Twins baseball team.

[moonflowerjewelry]

what a shame - mass transit is a terrific long term solution to a lot of problems. unfortunately here in so cal the metro link is always empty when i see it go by. my teenage son thinks taking the bus is "trashy" - where did we go so wrong?

[KillTheMessenger]

"my teenage son thinks taking the bus is "trashy" - where did we go so wrong?"

By giving them all they want and not asking for anything in return. Of course they will think that everything is for free.The problem isn't one of the new generation, though, but it mostly affects the "I want it all and I want it now" baby boomers.

[Myshkin57]

I think it gets that reputation because you often do run into disreputable characters on the bus. It's unfortunate that people would not take the bud for that reason, but I have had my fair share of run-ins with crazy people on the bus.

[KillTheMessenger]

It's beyond me why Americans think that public transit has to pay for itself. Nobody else in the world thinks that. All they want is less pollution in cities, more choices for citizens, less traffic and rapid transit.

[Egalitare]

If only we also insisted that the use of gasoline and diesel fuel "pay for itself"

[mamacat]

Good point. The taxes on gas, diesel, cars, and trucks do not come near paying for the true costs of an infrastructure for an internal-combustion powered transportation system.

European countries put taxes on fuel and cars to reflect the true cost of supporting the infrastructure, and as a result they pay two to three times as much as we do. Few people realise that the true cost of our reliance on the automobile is not reflected in the costs of our fuel and cars. It would be exceedingly painful now to raise the cost of gasoline to what it would be if other taxes were not used to pay for the infrastructure needed by cars. What we have is not a free market system, it is a system designed to guarantee excessive profits for Exxon and friends.

[KillTheMessenger]

Indeed.

[Myshkin57]

It is silly to think that public transit should turn a profit. Public transit's role is to facilitate the activities. If instead of looking at a profit-based model, we looked at a model that showed what public transit is saving us versus not having it, attitudes might be different. Think of how much it would cost the city of New York if they didn't have the subway system. Business would come grinding to a halt.

[CrzyRussell]

It's not expected or even allowed to make a profit. The FTA takes a close look at the public systems during their audits. If people paid at the farebox what it ACTUALLY cost per ride people would revolt.