Should Public Transit Agencies Strive for Profitability?

The fact that transit agencies require public subsidies is often held up by conservatives as a sign of their inferiority to other modes of transportation.

To what extent should transit be concerned with equity and to what extent should it be concerned with profitability? Photo: ## City Blue Lake##

But what if we could eliminate the need for a transit subsidy altogether? David Levinson, a.k.a the Transportationist, recently proposed doing just that. His suggestion, in a nutshell, is simply to cut the lesser-used routes, the ones where revenues fall short of expenses, and focus service where demand is greatest.

This is all very businesslike and rational. But Jarrett Walker at Human Transit wonders whether profitability should really be a central objective for transit agencies:

Currently, transit agencies are not trying to break even, so they are not failing if they’re not [profitable]. If we propose a free-market view in which transit should be breaking even, well, I’d like to see this as well in a perfect world. But that would be a world in which government isn’t heavily subsidizing transit’s competitor, the private car — not just through road expenditures but through such interventions as minimum parking requirements and petroleum-based foreign policy. I would further suggest that current environmental crises argue for government to be biased away from the private car and toward modes that do less environmental harm, and that subsidies toward transit (i.e. accepting that transit “loses money”) are one valid way of doing that.

But Levinson is right that a choice must be made. There really are two competing goals for transit: Ridership (which leads to high mode share, sustainability outcomes, and “profitability”) and Coverage (which provides social inclusion and equity benefits in low-density areas that a Ridership-based system wouldn’t serve.) These two goals lead network design in opposite directions. So transit agencies should have guidance — from those who fund them — on how much to spend on one goal or the other.

In working with transit agencies, I try to educate about these “Coverage” routes. I define these as “predictably low-ridership services motivated by goals other than ridership — goals generally including social service objectives, expectations of ‘equity’ between different subareas of the region, and a generalized desire to cover the whole service area with some kind of service.” In my work, I encourage public transit authorities to make a conscious choice about how much of this service they want to operate, understanding that every dollar they spend on Coverage service is a dollar they can’t spend on Ridership goals or related outcomes of mode share and fare revenue.

Elsewhere on the Network today: Pedestrian Observations explains why passenger miles are a terrible basis for comparing the outcomes of different transportation modes. Walkable Dallas-Fort Worth tries to convince Texans that they should remove a highway. And Greater City Providence appeals to local residents to take a more critical view of downtown parking policies.


Five Factors That Will Determine Whether TIFIA Benefits Transit

Phineas Baxandall is a senior analyst at the U.S. Public Interest Research Group. Last week, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood touted his department’s $545.9 million TIFIA loan to construct Los Angeles’ 8.5-mile light rail transit line along the Crenshaw corridor as “just one example of how DOT’s TIFIA credit assistance program extends the value of America’s transportation dollar.” But will […]

House Bill Makes Connection Between Transit Funding and Gas Price Relief

Here’s an alternative to the "Drill Now!" mantra that doesn’t involve ethanol subsidies or depleting the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Earlier this month, Congressman Earl Blumenauer introduced the Transportation and Housing Choices for Gas Price Relief Act [PDF]. Blumenauer’s hometown paper, The Oregonian, calls the measure a "smart bill": The key word in that title is […]

Criticism Compels Uber to Pull Ad About Giving Up on the Subway

What do modern ride-hailing services mean for the future of transit? Serious observers think companies like Uber may help complement or substitute for bus service in spread out areas that aren’t well-suited for fixed-route transit. And ride-hailing may help transit agencies provide paratransit services. But one thing that any technology based on space-hogging cars can’t do is replace high-capacity city transit systems. A recent Uber ad suggested otherwise, […]

Tracing the Fault Lines Between Public and Private Transit Operators

Should private transit companies enjoy the same federal gas tax exemption that many public operators receive? How does the existence of private inter-city bus service affect the government’s development of new high-speed rail lines? And does it matter that private transit firms are eligible for public subsidies, even if at a much smaller rate than […]

To Put Transit on Stronger Footing, Stop Lavish Subsidies for Driving

There’s an interesting conversation happening in urbanism circles about how to make transit financially sustainable, going back to a piece in CityLab last June from University of Minnesota professor David Levinson. Levinson made the case for running transit like a public utility, not a government agency. There’s one thing that’s largely missing from these discussions, argues Cap’n Transit, […]