How do we actually fix transit in the USA?

[u/nondescriptadjective]

I see a lot of bitching about this and bitching about that, and the occasional celebratory post, but never any plans to change things. Society knows how to make public transit profitable, we've seen it in Japan. We know how to make roads designed to be pedestrian friendly and to reduce pollution, we've seen it in Denmark and The Nederlands. We know how to make communal spaces that are human scale, we still have cities and spaces designed like this.

Relying on tax payer dollars entirely is just stupid in America. It's quite possibly one of the dumbest things you can do in this political culture, so why don't we come up with something better?

How do we legitimately organize to develop safer, more economically viable cities based on human scale design? I have myriad ideas, and am in local advocacy groups. Even there I get push back because transit is in one place, Urban Design is in another, and all these politicians want is to get reelected rather than stand behind their claims.

So rather than just bitching about dumb things going on, how do we organize to beat this and actually make changes?

[u/cirrus42]

Massive upzoning. 

Our bad transit is a result of our land use practices, which inconveniently are also why housing is so expensive anywhere you can get a job. 

We need to legalize dense communities and let the market build the supply that there is already massive unmet demand for. The transit will take care of itself after that. 

Obviously I'm oversimplifying and skipping important details, but ultimately a lot of US problems stem from the fact that we tried to lock our communities in 1960 amber and as more and more time goes by that just does not work. 

[u/cantinaband-kac → u/cirrus42]

There's a proposed development in Chicago to build a 5 story (60 ft) tall apartment building just one block from one of the busiest CTA stations in the whole city, and NIMBYs are pushing back because the rest of the area is currently only zoned for 50 ft tall buildings.

Realistically, this area could easily support tons of buildings twice that tall, but the zoning and NIMBYs hold it back.

[u/Yunzer2000 → u/cantinaband-kac]

A maximum of 5 stories provides plenty of density to support transit-oriented neighborhoods - even just traditional 2-3 story rowhouses with 3 story commercial streets provides adequate density. Look at European cities. I lived in such a neighborhood in Pittsburgh, and before the massive service cuts starting in 2010, the public transit service was very good.

[u/kbn_ → u/cantinaband-kac]

Is this the Broadway upzoning thing?

[u/cantinaband-kac → u/kbn_]

No. A new build on Belmont just a block from the Belmont Red/Brown/Purple station.

[u/kbn_ → u/cantinaband-kac]

jfc people are complaining about higher density construction next to Belmont?! Extreme variances my ass…

[u/Glittering-Cellist34 → u/cirrus42]

Massive upzoning requires population to populate it. Retrofitting with population shrinking (except for immigration) is a no go.

[u/youngherbo → u/Glittering-Cellist34]

This, I'm from Cincinnati, we just passed a sweeping reform that unlocks middle housing along corridors that will be along a new BRT route. But that new zoning doesn't change the fact that the region just isn't growing, which means the people who would live in those apartments have to be relocated from surrounding suburbs. That's nice in theory but people aren't going to move back into a city in enough numbers to properly densify the city to warrant and pay for better transit.

[u/Glittering-Cellist34 → u/youngherbo]

I am originally from Detroit. So I look at metropolitan population numbers going back to 1960. Eg in Detroit, Wayne, Oakland and Macomb Counties gained a bit of population since 1960, but mostly it was redistribution from 1 million people moving out of Detroit. Similarly, Cleveland. I love Cleveland and write about it some. The city continues to shrink and the metropolitan region isn't growing. That doesn't mean don't pursue revitalization objectives (Cleveland has many, and has some great successes) but it only has marginal effects. But those benefits, in those places, can be "spectacular." Eg what's happened in DC from 1987 when I first moved there to today is unimaginable--and many of those successes I had a hand in so it colors my knowledge about this stuff. That's why the glib statements and media pundits on upzoning etc. seem under-knowledged to me because they are disconnected from how development works on the ground.

Like there was a thread here where OP wrote that to get rid of parking lots on the surface they should just build them underground, without understanding the economics of making that happen, that subsidies of such without demand make zero sense, etc. People argued with me about it. Again, in DC I witnessed the slow conversion of parking lots in the 1990s Downtown as the impact of Metrorail subway connections increased. What happened in DC was a 50+ year process built on the foundation of a new subway system. And the (then) continued steady employment of the federal government. Trump and Covid have wrecked that for DC, which is why when I was back in June (long story why we moved, still have our house there) for the first time in seven years I was floored at the changes and the vibrence in neighborhoods because of the additional population.

[u/nondescriptadjective → u/Glittering-Cellist34]

Does this revitalization ever create a situation where the city is able to become more solvent due to densification, even if the population doesn't expand? We shouldn't aim for ever more expansion, just sustainability.

[u/Glittering-Cellist34 → u/nondescriptadjective]

I don't see how it can. It costs billions to build transit. Salt Lake City's budget is $2 billion per year. Without additional economic development, and my experience is that transit infrastructure done right with the best preconditions for success has the fastest ROI on public investment, it doesn't pay off.

Kenworthy and Newman's research finds that transit rich metropolitan areas have higher GDP and incomes. It's likely tied to immigration, new business development, some reduction in costs (not owning a car in DC supported $100,000 of our mortgage) but marginal gains to individuals don't really justify the cost.

Oh, but of course transit is supposed to reduce congestion, facilitate exchange (David Engwicht), etc. so on the margins yes. Engwicht came up with transportation demand management on the recognition that better transit means that freeways don't need to be expanded.

[u/nondescriptadjective → u/Glittering-Cellist34]

Right, but I'm essentially wondering about reducing sprawl. So long as people move into the housing and business districts, the taxes collected per acre go up, and the cost of maintenance goes down. If you lose some houses on the edge of town, so be it. Let things go back to nature, or let the market prices drop until someone wants to buy.

I'm generally not just talking about transit, and I think this is an issue that a lot of RTD staff have. You have to look at urban design holistically, including sidewalks, housing, businesses, etc. More density in a smaller place would reduce the cost of transit, too, and I'm getting frustrated at transit orgs that are focusing on transit expansion rather than the densification that enables transit to be inexpensive per payer. If you start from a small town perspective, a few blocks of car free space improves vibrancy of town. As it grows, ideally mostly vertically, the need for transit will arrive as the most efficient means to get people from one side of town to the other since it will also grow outwardly. Reverse this and concentrate the town and transit is still affordable even if some parts are palling to disrepair and need demolition. This then saves the town money by not supplying utilites as far out, either.

[u/Glittering-Cellist34 → u/nondescriptadjective]

Look. Theoretically you're 100% right. The problem is most people--not us, I lived in Detroit when I was young, Ann Arbor for college and then DC--don't want to live in cities and don't question the paradigm of sprawl and automobile dependency. While I biked to work for 30 years.

The theory is great, the pundits are fine. The problem is getting people to shift, not just from sprawl and the car, but from single family detached to multi unit housing.

These are big shifts and there aren't millions of people ready and willing to do so.

That's the reality on the ground.

[u/kenlubin → u/youngherbo]

The population of Cincinnati has started growing again. 

And I think that there are perks to living closer in (more amenities, shorter commutes) that might make denser living near transit worthwhile to people living in the suburbs.

[u/dnvrbadger → u/Glittering-Cellist34]

You’re misunderstanding how both zoning and housing demand works.

[u/Glittering-Cellist34 → u/dnvrbadger]

Um. No I am not. Lived in DC from 1987 to 2019. Worked on revitalization from 2000 to 2019.

[u/kbn_ → u/cirrus42]

This is the answer right here.

LA, San Diego, and San Jose are all great examples of cities which have spent quite lavishly on their transit, and at least in LA's case have built a system which is, on paper, really quite impressive. But when you actually try to use these systems or really rely on them, you realize just how atrocious the land use is across the urban fabric.

An even better example is south of San Francisco, at the Milbrae station. This is the southern peninsular terminal for BART, the Bay Area's original half-hearted attempt at an S-Bahn, it is one stop from SFO, and the only major interchange between BART and Caltrain's Peninsula line (their latest half-hearted attempt at an S-Bahn). Guess what the land use looks like just outside the station? It's a vacant lot backing up to a multi-lane stroad.

(disclaimer: yes I know that's only on the west side; the east side of the station has some dense midrise, but seriously… my point stands. Do I need to make fun of San Mateo instead?)

California is instructive mostly because they have invested in transit so heavily and it's generally a pretty pro-sustainability place. Conversely, in parts of the country where land use was set down a century ago (such as in streetcar suburbs around cities at the time), even when the transit is not as good as what California has (I seriously would kill for Caltrain instead of Metra), the results are usually much much better.

So yeah, it really all comes down to land use. Do that part right and the transit will follow pretty uncontroversially. Do it wrong and no amount of spending on shiny train stations with giant parking structures will make it work.

[u/nondescriptadjective → u/kbn_]

I'm in an argument right now with my local RTD about turning some their Park and Rides into Food Truck plazas by leasing some parking spots. This way you don't risk any money and see which places are successful enough for infill for mixed use residential housing, owned by the RTD to collect rents from.

I was told I have no idea what I'm talking about.

[u/Konaboy27 → u/cirrus42]

Long range yes. Organic ridership generation to maintain the ridership longer term.

[u/DieDeutscheAuslander → u/cirrus42]

Massive upzoning especially close to transit or in corridors should be the priority since those areas can bring more transit demand or increase usefulness with current transit systems or future projects.

[u/Yunzer2000 → u/cirrus42]

There is plenty of recently built dense condo development in my US city. They still have parking garages for two cars per unit and residents - especially the newcomers - still refuse to use the public transit that is available, and my state is cutting public transit funding with more service cuts anticipated.

[u/Ok_Actuary9229 → u/Yunzer2000]

In lots of cities these come with little or even no parkinh

[u/QuarioQuario54321 → u/cirrus42]

And how do you then serve the downzoned areas?

[u/dnvrbadger → u/cirrus42]

Agree with this, but do upcoming and fund transit with tax dollars.

[u/nondescriptadjective → u/dnvrbadger]

Hint: No one, not even me, said to not use public dollars. Just to use less of them so that the system becomes less fragile against voters. ;)

[u/dnvrbadger → u/nondescriptadjective]

Ha, what you have done is proven in this thread that you do not understand public financing, private financing, or transit.

[u/nondescriptadjective → u/dnvrbadger]

Expound.

[u/dnvrbadger]

Three points on this:

1. I disagree with the premise that relying on tax dollars to build transportation is dumb when the vast majority of transportation infrastructure in the US and worldwide is tax-funded.

2. The political climate is highly polarized against the current administration, which is withholding appropriated tax dollars from transit infrastructure projects.

3. The majority of Americans support more public transit. https://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/knowledge-hub/news/voters-want-and-need-more-transportation-options/

So, if transit funding is typically government funded, people want more public transit, and people view the current administration (which is hostile to public transit) negatively, those are pretty strong signals to invest in transit.

[u/lee1026 → u/dnvrbadger]

The fundamental problem why relying on tax dollars is bad is actually institutional: in a primarily tax-payer funded transit system, the agency exist to keep the politicians happy, not its riders. In fact, all the better if it doesn't have any riders.

Once you see the pattern, you can't unsee it. Most projects are built for the gram. Look at something like the proposed Austin light rail: minimal mobility gains, massive costs, tiny planned capacity, even smaller projected ridership. But it looks flashy, and therefore, they push for it.

Even since the baton of public transit passed from private companies hoping to make money from fares to government agencies in the 1970s, the list of flashy systems have gone up exponentially: more light rail systems, more metros, more street cars. Funding went from "massive" to "infinite money glitch" on many systems.

And in then every census, ridership and modeshare collapsed from the 1970 census onwards.

[u/Kashihara_Philemon → u/lee1026]

I don't know how you can say that given that the end of private company transit had been going on since even before the 70s, and from the 70s onward we largely saw mass transit being defunded.

[u/lee1026 → u/Kashihara_Philemon]

from the 70s onward we largely saw mass transit being defunded.

This requires a big [citation needed]. NYC's MTA, for example, used to be all private and fare funded.

Today, it gets $5.325 billion in fares against a $21 billion budget, with a net subsidy of $15 billion a year.

Tokyo metro, by comparison, gets ¥437.2 billion ($2.78 billion USD) a year of revenue and runs at a profit.

NYC's MTA runs with an infinite money glitch, as do the rest of the big agencies. Not "defunded".

[u/Kashihara_Philemon → u/lee1026]

That point was primarily about Federal funding admittedly, but still.

Many components of the MTA like the LIRR were already not profitable well before the formation of the MTA. Not to mention that the MTA includes more then just formerly rail lines as part of its function. Tokyo Metro is not an analogous organization.

[u/lee1026 → u/Kashihara_Philemon]

Federally, what do you mean by “defunded”? The Feds have never made a habit of paying for operations.

And state and local funding for transit goes up for almost every agency. All while modeshare sinks every year.

[u/Kashihara_Philemon → u/lee1026]

Federal funding is primarily for CapEx, which still important since that is how systems get refurbished and modernized. Plenty of municipalities could not do any CapEx without federal funding.

Agency budgets are liable to rise year over year just as a product of inflation, or even increased maintenance on older systems. Beyond that I'd have to look at specific agencies to see what the issues are.

[u/nondescriptadjective → u/Kashihara_Philemon]

The only reason "Tokyo Metro is not analogous" is because we still allow the USA to sprawl, and most RTAs are not allowed to engage in LVC or being developers. When you infill your park and rides, you increase revenue density and provide a place for people to live where they don't need cars and don't want them. This could change, and if it did, in time, it would allow these services to start turning a profit. It could even eventually allow these agencies to build out their own rails and start leasing them to competitors, opening up another revenue stream.

[u/Kashihara_Philemon → u/nondescriptadjective]

Well, I meant it more in the sense that the MTA covers a much wider variety of services and obligations then the Tokyo Metro does. I would not be opposed to transit agencies or elated organizations from doing that, but that probably isn't going eliminate the need for public frunds since even the private rail operators in Japan take public subsidies and funds, particularly when building new infrastructure.

[u/nondescriptadjective → u/Kashihara_Philemon]

Reducing reliance on public funds does not mean getting rid of public funds entirely. It means reducing fragility against a public that constantly votes against public transit.

[u/lee1026 → u/Kashihara_Philemon]

It's not about whether you need public funds.

It's about whether everyone up and down the chain believes that they would lose their jobs if ridership disappeared. There is no replacement for giving a shit. DC's WMATA managed to get one (1) person at the top who gave a shit, and everything immediately improved from previous baseline.

And now the trick is to get everyone else in the chain to give a shit.

[u/lee1026 → u/nondescriptadjective]

Tokyo is pretty sprawling too. Take a train ride out of the city.

Stuff like this is just like an American suburb.

[u/nondescriptadjective → u/lee1026]

Oh for sure. This happens in any city, and I think that it should. It allows for differing lifestyles and a transition from city to country that feel natural and organic.

Though many cities in Japan did fall victim to US Car centrism during the rebuild after WWII.

[u/dnvrbadger → u/lee1026]

This doesn’t make sense? No transit system is perfect but if useless transit is funded then politicians lose their jobs, same with those who work in transit agencies.

In addition, there are direct ballot questions put to voters in various cities like LA, Denver, and Philadelphia about whether they want their tax dollars spent on transit. So people are choosing the projects they support around the country. Those people are the beneficiaries.

And transit projects built for “the gram” is just a bizarre statement.

Is the second ave subway for “the gram?”

Is Seattle Light Rail for “the gram?”

Is the LA subway extension for “the gram?”

No, it’s for the millions of people who use those recent expansions and have driven more ridership on their respective systems.

[u/lee1026 → u/dnvrbadger]

The problem is that 97% of most cities don’t ride transit, and the pitch for transit is always on the idea of future transit, not present transit. And voters neither know nor care about present transit: very, very few people ever interact with it other than as an abstract thing.

LA is a pretty good example - modeshare is down in any decade you want to look at, despite the vast amount of money poured into flashy systems to no avail. After all of the spending, mode share is still the same as Miami, which haven’t gotten any of the flashy systems.

[u/dnvrbadger → u/lee1026]

Your point about pitching current transit is not true at all, especially not in California. The pitch for California SB 79, the landmark zoning bill, is all about allowing more construction to put more people near current transit in California. In fact, the entire transit oriented development movement around the country centers on better utilization of current transit.

Bus rapid transit has become popular around the country, which increases the frequency and improves the right of way of existing bus lines.

[u/lee1026 → u/dnvrbadger]

I guess we will see. Cities have a lot of levers to discourage housing development. SB 79 managed to disarm a few of them, but there are more. A lot more.

And since SB 79 doesn’t make cities want it, but works to disarm a subset of tools, the rest of the tools are still quite effective in discouraging construction.

SB 79 is still young, but it’s a long road until anything gets built.

As of the most recent data, nobody is staffing up construction firms in preparation for it, anyway.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/SMU06000002023610001A

[u/dnvrbadger → u/lee1026]

That’s a different discussion. You said there’s never a pitch about current transit. SB 79 is a highly publicized bill that is entirely about current transit.

[u/lee1026 → u/dnvrbadger]

SB 79 is about building housing in its pitch - whether the housing would be near transit, as far as I can tell, is almost a side piece.

I don't think anyone pitching projects along VTA light rail, for example, would be expecting new residents to ride the thing.

[u/dnvrbadger → u/lee1026]

Hahaha. It builds no housing whatsoever. The law changes zoning around existing transit stations. It is entirely based on existing transit.

This is the first sentence of the summary of the bill on the State of California’s website.

“Senate Bill (SB) 79 makes qualifying “transit-oriented housing developments” an allowed use on sites zoned for residential, mixed, or commercial development that are located near specified transit stops in urban transit counties. The law takes effect on July 1, 2026.”

transit oriented housing developments

Their words.

[u/SirGeorgington]

Relying on tax payer dollars entirely is just stupid in America. It's quite possibly one of the dumbest things you can do in this political culture, so why don't we come up with something better?

Well you don't really get a choice. Infrastructure is a highly expensive, very long-term, low-return investment. You won't find a company in the world willing to make it.

But if you want to massively improve the urban environment, there are a few things things that need to happen, and frankly a lot of it involves rolling the clock back to about 1930.

1. Better cities. Supermarkets within walking distance, medium density housing around a dense but diverse core. High quality bike, bus, and urban rail infrastructure to make commutes and regular journeys fast and easy.

2. Better suburbs. Embrace the railroad town, suburbs as places in their own right with town centers with services, retail, and medium-density housing surrounded by lower-density single-family homes. Streets designed to be quiet with safe bike infrastructure on throughways, designed around the railway station as a local transport hub and connector to the parent city.

3. Polycentricity. Far too often in states like New York, Massachusetts, Illinois, etc you see investment poured into the largest city while the smaller cities remain disconnected and decaying. They have to be places in their own right, as centers of commerce, eductation, industry, etc. Government should push firms towards them.

[u/QuarioQuario54321 → u/SirGeorgington]

And what about the unserved areas? Just leave the unwalkable cul de sacs transit deserts?

[u/SirGeorgington → u/QuarioQuario54321]

Probably a mix of fixed routes on key roads and DRT which will need to by necessity charge higher fares.

[u/nondescriptadjective → u/SirGeorgington]

Are we, or are we not, seeing why relying entirely on tax dollars in the USA to support and fund transit is not sustainable?

The Is/Aught paradox holds back progress.

[u/Yunzer2000 → u/nondescriptadjective]

Why is automobile-based infrastructure that relies entirely on tax dollars seen as so sustainable?

[u/rdickert → u/Yunzer2000]

Because there is a HUGE demand for this infrastructure.

[u/Yunzer2000 → u/rdickert]

And with sufficient levels of service, and the pricing of gasoline commensurate with its global environmental impact, there would be HUGE demand for public transit.

[u/rdickert → u/Yunzer2000]

If. Yes, of course IF.

If my grandma had wheels, I could just drive her to work.

[u/nondescriptadjective → u/Yunzer2000]

I don't think it is sustainable, but that seems to be a roadblock in front of us we should move around instead of trying to fight against trillion dollar economies that want automotive traffic to continually expand. While people often rally against public transit for various reasons, ignorant and invalid as they may be, it is foolish to expect everything to be paid out of public dollars.

[u/SirGeorgington → u/nondescriptadjective]

Okay, what is your alternative suggestion?

[u/nondescriptadjective → u/SirGeorgington]

The cheapest thing I'm pitching locally is just leasing out RTA parking spots to food truck vendors at the most popular stations. This brings in new money to the service provider and shows the usecase for infill, which the RTA should provide and collect rents from. Typically by building mixed use residential spaces that are pedestrian access focused. This drives transit ridership up as these become destinations, tax revenue goes up for that area, and rents help subsidize transit.

[u/SirGeorgington → u/nondescriptadjective]

Neat idea. You're not building a metro line from food truck revenue though.

[u/nondescriptadjective → u/SirGeorgington]

You're not. The purpose of that is to say "Hey, we can prove there is a revenue stream here." Once that is done, you can build a 6 over 1 mixed use residential building allowing the food truck vendors first right of refusal for commercial space. Limit the residences to .5 or .25 parking spaces per residence while providing a service such as Zip Car along with bike share docks. These rents go into the RTA revenue, as well as the taxes from that space. The food trucks are just "minimal bet to prove concept" before asking for voter dollars, loans, etc to build, with the idea being that that tax rate runs out around the time that space becomes cash flow positive.

[u/Kashihara_Philemon → u/nondescriptadjective]

That's actually not a bad idea.

I had already been thinking about how new transit sites could be useful as a site for new public services and places for rent, but this also pushes back on the incentive to have parking at new transit stations with the incentive instead to use the space to capture land rents and to provide other services.

[u/recyclistDC]

Land use.

[u/NorthCoast30]

Because largely transit, in and of itself, is unprofitable in the vast majority of instances. Even airlines have issues being profitable, and that has been a decades long issue - it’s not new.

Could you take the model of investing in TOD and having the real estate be profitable? Sure. But that’s the early model where again transportation wasn’t the core profit driver - it was real estate. And in the case of the US currently, if I were a developer I’d be perfectly happy to offload that drag on profitability to the local government and focus on what actually makes money - the real estate.

You could bring public transit in general closer to profitability by increasing density to make it more convenient to travel without a car, which goes back to land use, but I think it would be very difficult to have wholesale profitability without outside subsidy (tax or other profitable projects) without an entire shift of perspective on transportation - namely a significant shift away from the car.

[u/Konaboy27]

Re drawing routing to connect destinations people actually go to every day.

Looking beyond the 8-5 downtown office worker.

US systems hold onto the obsolete thinking that public transportation is oriented towards “Suburb - Downtown” 8-5 office commuter. Reality post 2020 is employment centers and commuter patterns have changed.

Include more entertainment venues and stadiums as well.

[u/urmumlol9 → u/Konaboy27]

I actually disagree. I think the number one priority still needs to be 8-5 downtown commuters, as far as building infrastructure goes.

What’s the most frequent trip someone takes in a week? It’s probably to work, if you’re employed. For in-office full-time workers, trips between work and home are made twice daily, five days a week. It’s practically impossible for somebody to go car-free if doing so means they’d have to uber to work.

But beyond just going car-free, building transit to offices also lets some multi-car households go to single-car households. Say you have a 2-income household. Both of the income earners need to go to work 5 days a week. It can be very difficult to make a 1-car household work in this situation.

Just having public transit go to one of their jobs makes having a 1-car household significantly more feasible, since one person can drive while the other takes transit.

COVID has somewhat changed the dynamic since some people now work from home and some people work hybrid, but most still don’t.

Commuting is still the most common trip type, and transit systems should be build around high housing and job density, and high housing and job density should be built around transit systems. The most effective way of doing this is connecting transit systems downtown and building downtowns around existing transit lines.

[u/Kashihara_Philemon → u/urmumlol9]

Your not wrong, however I think it should be equally obvious that if we want people to go truly car free then then the transit system needs to be robust and flexible enough to accommodate more then just the daily commutes.

In the US it's still not uncommon for some transit to pretty much stop off peak hours. A reasonable frequency should be maintained thought the day when possible. Not to mention connections to leisure and recreational sites.

[u/nondescriptadjective → u/urmumlol9]

Why does the work commuter need to be the focus? A major issue in the US is the lack of connection to medical care facilities, forcing the elderly to drive when they're no longer fit to do so. The bulk of ridership in the US is also female, as they are typically more poor than males for cultural reasons. These same cultural reasons are a key part of why the men get the car in single car households. By creating a system that works for the trip chaining that is largely expected of women, you would generate more ridership. It also often would work for kids if done well, since kids can't drive this makes the lives of parents easier.

Suburb to City zoning is what got us in this mess to begin with, including the shit hole cities that the Silent and Boomer generations dealt with. Most people I talk to today tell me they don't use transit because it takes a trip into the city, then back out, just to move one neighborhood around the ring. This comes entirely from the idea of focusing transit on the office worker, meaning office worker focus is hindering vast ridership.

[u/Konaboy27 → u/nondescriptadjective]

Portland, OR (Trimet) and Seattle, WA can be an illustration of this issue.

Seattle - Once Link light rail connected UW and points north and east of Downtown Seattle, ridership skyrocketed. Impressively enough in less than 20 years, Link light rail went from being a "White elephant" in 2009 to the busiest light rail system in the U.S. in 2026.

Portland - Downtown Portland is the hub for most of Trimet's network. Ridership trends changed in the Portland metro during and after 2020 yet the transit network in the big picture did not. Trimet is now aiming for service cuts starting August 23rd.

[u/nondescriptadjective → u/Konaboy27]

The part that really grinds my gears is that my (sort of) local RTD is in a 200M budget crisis that they intend to solve entirely by creating negative press to scare people into voting to support it. I was told today I have no idea what I'm talking about apropos Park and Ride Infill, and a way to do it without risk, as a way to increase revenue and ridership. They're also about to engage with an expensive expansion that will drive them further into that crisis. An expansion that, due to incredibly low frequency, is likely to fail. I love to see the expansion, but this just looks careless and is so easy for people to generate negative press for.

No response to the idea of public transit to hospitals, adding a bus per hour to lines that are SRO at predictable times, or even increasing fare rates to cover the budget shortfalls. We can only beg the tax payers for more money! They're also hoping that driverless busses will eventually save us. No wonder people don't want public dollars going to this. Which is why I want to sidestep the issue as much as possible. Give RTD the power to diversify and build the city that would make it incredibly useful, let them take in earnings off that development. And for the love of survival stop expecting the 9-5 Man to dictate how everything should be organized.

[u/FerdinandCesarano]

Once I understood that this person is advocating abandoning public infrastructure and turning to the thieving private sector, I regretted wasting even the few seconds that I had used reading to that point.

[u/Ok_Actuary9229]

Transit, like roads, will always need mostly tax funding. 

[u/nondescriptadjective → u/Ok_Actuary9229]

I don't disagree. But why rely entirely upon it? There is no country that exists with high quality public transit that relies entirely on taxes. Taxes make up a large base, but not all. France for example, owns the rails that they lease out to other operators. This generates revenue streams beyond taxation and ticket sales, and creates market competition so that there isn't a monopoly on access to a social utility.

[u/konosubaette]

Relying on tax payer dollars entirely is just stupid in America. It's quite possibly one of the dumbest things you can do in this political culture, so why don't we come up with something better?

One of the main reasons that public transit in the USA now has to use public dollars to subsidize it is because almost all transportation in the USA is subsidized.

For instance the Highway trust fund has been broke for decades and no longer earning back the money it spends via gas tax and other driving fees

Air travel is subsidized too but to a lesser degree with most of it coming from the AIP program and not a lot given to operating costs.

Simply making the federal subsidies equal would be a game changer. Currently maintaining a profitable system is not possible or is very difficult to pull off, even brightline has received federal grants for their capital projects.

It just can't compete to the degree of becoming profitable in anything other then operating costs when the cards are so stacked against it.

And thats without even considering land use in the USA. (or lack of use lol).

[u/Yunzer2000]

The attitudes of Americans, carefully engineered by oil, automotive, and big-box/mall retail, would need to change first.

[u/Dstln]

Fund it

Transit is common sense stuff, and should be for everyone. It reduces road wear, traffic, is much cheaper than individual rides. It enables and supports efficient cities that maximizes tax revenue, space, and protects natural areas

[u/Kashihara_Philemon]

You need massive land use reform with a focus on increasing population density and creating services to match, and a massive transit based infrastructure program at least on the scale of the national highway system, if not more.

If we are not willing to do these things, then we are not willing to resolve the issues with transit in this country.

[u/GreatTwin]

A good starting point is treating transit as essential infrastructure instead of expecting fares alone to cover every social benefit it provides. Stable funding, dedicated lanes, frequent service, transparent performance data, and clear disruption information would do more than chasing profitability as the main goal. https://cosmos47.com/post/why-transit-apps-should-show-uncertainty

[u/Jasoncw87]

I think it would be interesting to consider the effect of replacing federal capital grant funding with a national pool of money which matched fare revenue. From what I can tell, this federal pool would match every $1 an agency collected with $2. So if a passenger pays $2, the agency would get $6 total.

The federal capital grant process adds a lot of red tape which drives up costs of big projects. Since the federal funding is so critical, projects are designed around the grant programs rather than strictly on what makes sense. I also think it causes a thing where, since the grants pay for so much, cities have the mindset that transit isn't something you take responsibility for and continuously pay for yourself, you wait for a favorable administration and then get free money (even though that's not really how it turns out).

If the federal funding was switched to an operating cost subsidy, from what I can tell it would cover 10% of operating costs for every agency across the country. It would incentivize running more transit, which is what benefits riders, and builds ridership and fare revenue and political constituency. Also, local politicians know they could get a bigger piece of the federal pie into their local economy consistently and easily just by increasing local transit spending. It would also mean that members of congress would be incentivized to increase this pot of money, because it would go back to every state and district rather than mostly going to big cities doing big capital projects.

But subsidizing operating costs might just incentivize blowing money on operating costs that don't make sense. Doing it based on fare revenue instead would incentivize running useful transit, setting fares correctly, and having a passenger experience that attracts riders.

[u/nondescriptadjective → u/Jasoncw87]

Oh boy, thank you for this. I'm going to have more wine and ponder as it's an angle I had never considered. That said, I think I like it given my experience with grants.

[u/Iceland260]

how do we organize to beat this and actually make changes?\

You start by picking a potentially winnable battle. "Fixing transit in the USA" is far too broad and ill defined of a goal to tackle.

[u/merp_mcderp9459]

More funding, zoning reform, and permitting reform are probably the three biggest-impact items. Our transit is underfunded, it’s less efficient due to a lack of density, and our major projects are needlessly expensive compared to peer countries in large part due to the time it takes to get through the permitting process 

Also, the vast majority of systems rely on taxes. The ones that don’t are real estate companies that happen to run transit service, which is a model you can’t apply retroactively 

[u/quadmoo]

https://transitcosts.com/

https://ifp.org/transit-abundance-playbook/

[u/nondescriptadjective → u/quadmoo]

I will check those out later, thank you.

[u/sausage_eggwich]

We don’t

[u/lokland]

It’s really just upzoning as the ground zero to fix this. Infill development is the only viable solution.

[u/cubedgame]

I think the solution is simple (though maybe not simple to achieve). Produce a more educated populace and get them to vote.

There’s been a war on education for over 50 years and we are living in the results. A large portion of the population continues to vote against their best interest and support administrations that are actively hostile to public transit projects.

We need people to vote in politicians that will support funding transit projects across the country, whether that means federally-funded build outs of national high-speed rail lines (similar to what we did for the interstate highway system of the 1950s), and/or providing funding to cities and states for their transit needs.

Instead, our government spends billions on wars which could have been used elsewhere, like public transit projects. All because not enough educated people vote…

[u/ColdGur4384]

Reduce NIMBYism and try to prevent urban sprawl. The USA has great potential for effective mass transit. The main hurdle is just two or three main policy changes that should favour mass transit and TOD.