I had fun writing this on Hacker News and thought I’d share it here. The question was “How would you make public transit profitable / create more value?” and I answered with this:
It’s a complicated issue, so here’s a little background (I have a Masters in Urban Planning so I’ve read a lot).Streetcar lines (and subways in some places) were profitable businesses, just like railroad lines. But there were a few features that we don’t have today.
First, it was a new mobility technology so it opened up land that was too far away to be developed. There is no such land now in metro areas because highways and have cars make all areas equally accessible.
Second, they were a real estate play as much as a transportation play. Because they opened up new land, the lines tended to go to greenfields where the streetcar companies and their allies owned or could buy land. Take a look at the Brown line in Chicago and watch how it winds – that was a land acquisition issue. This wouldn’t work now because a rail line doesn’t increase the value of land enough since so much is accessible by car.
Third, people rode trains a lot more then than people ride them even now. These trains were extensions off of a very dense, centralized city. Technology and social changes reduced the number of daily rides. For instance, refrigerators meant that women didn’t have to ride into the market every day. Worker benefits (like the 6 or 5 day work week) meant that workers didn’t ride as often. As shopping and employment decentralized, people didn’t have to ride to the city as often. And when people got cars, they had an alternative to the train.
So what can we learn from history and contemporary transit to make transit more valuable today?
First, there must be attractions at both end so the fixed costs in tracks and cars can make money both ways. Early streetcar lines often has amusement parks at the terminus to promote two-way travel. The Las Vegas monorail is a decent modern version of this – there’s something at every stop. Transit lines that end in the suburbs at a big parking lot will be underutilized by definition.
Second, land use matters. All of the streetcars and subways were built before zoning and so the market built what the market could bear by transit, and buildings could be razed and built bigger if demand grew. Housing in transit-rich cities and near light rail in cities with new transit systems if more expensive because zoning restricts how much can be built. In addition to maximum height, massing, and lot utilization, there are also minimum parking limits that mean every house/condo is much more expensive and not affordable to people that would use transit the most. Take a look at the area around the transit stops in Arlington, VA for an example of transit zoning done right – extremely dense development within 1/2 mile of transit stops. It has the lowest car ownership and usage in Northern VA and generates 50% of the county’s property tax in 5% of its land area.
Third is that quality of service matters. Busses in the US suck and are slow because fare collection takes place one at a time while the bus is stopped. Curitiba, Brazil (look it up, it’s the world leader in bus transit) has bus stops where you pay to enter and everyone boards at once. The city has one of the highest rates of car ownership in Brazil and the highest transit utilization in Brazil. On their main bus routes they have 1-3 minute headways so there’s no such thing as looking at a schedule. Other things like priority lanes for buses at stoplights, tech to let the bus hold a green light to make it through, etc help. Bogota Columbia is the other leading bus tech center and both cities do something like 50x the miles of service per dollar as a subway would have cost to build and operate.
Fourth, if there’s lots of free parking at the destination it’s almost always easier to drive. Point to point means the trip is faster and free parking means it costs less. Places in the states that have the highest transit usage (Boston, New York, Chicago Loop, SF) are places where parking sucks or is expensive. Even LA traffic doesn’t keep people from driving because a) the buses are stuck in it too, and b) it’s free to park when you get there.
Basically, any city that’s building a light rail or subway line and not dramatically increasing the zoning around it is throwing money away. For instance, the 2nd Ave subway in NYC probably won’t change much for the $5 billion because there’s no way to dramatically increase the number of people that live in the Upper East Side or Harlem. Without the proper land use, there’s not enough population to drive demand, without demand there’s not enough incentive to provide good levels of service, and without good levels of service people will find it faster to drive.
There’s some more good discussion on the Hacker News thread.
EDIT: And on this thread as well.
Ryan Mulligan says
It’s interesting to note that the Las Vegas monorail is an epic failure. People use cabs, and there is free parking at every Casino so you can drive between them as easily (and cheaper if you have a rental car) than riding the monorail.
Andy K says
Could not agree more with the points about fare collection and the effects of free parking.
Jeremy Hubble says
Peter –
I stumbled across this post, and just got started rambling…
Fare collection time seems to only be an issue with the “moderately successful” American bus systems. Most, alas, have a long way to go to get there. In Silicon Valley, buses are rarely delayed by fare collection. (Most riders have “flash passes” of some sort or another and the ridership volume is quite low.) However, the transit system is a poster child of how billions of dollars done “almost” right is not much better than nothing done at all. There are a couple dozen transit agencies in the bay area, each with different fare structures rules and schedules. This results in curious service where buses stop at train stations – just not any time near the time trains stop. Then you have a Silicon Valley Light Rail system that goes from major residential areas to office parks in a nice circuitous route that makes it take longer than biking. And then, it just misses its target. (A set of office towers has a nice pedestrian-friendly street level entrance close to the light rail. But alas, the rail station is on the opposite site of a 8-lane road with no crossing nearby. Oops!)
Compared to this type of transit, New York’s 2nd Avenue line is a no brainer. Lexington Avenue is almost always packed. The new line could easily be one of the top 5 lines in the United States. Even its “net new” traffic would probably be greater than any other proposed line in the US.
Today, people probably make more “vehicle” trips than they did in transit’s heyday – in many cases, they are so isolated that the have to. Could a transit system capture this? What if we flipped the fare collection? Make all transit lines free, but require the payment of a cash toll for every street traveled. (And have a single toll booth that requires waiting in line and then getting out of the car to insert cash.) Parking, of course, would also require a cash outlay – at all destinations. And due to pollution we could prohibit internal combustion engines within cities and require electric engines that need to be charged (for a fee) before each trip. And while we are at it, the vehicles should be made “public”, so anybody could just grab a car on the street and take it to their destination.
It seems ludicrous to force the current state of transit on “car travel”, but the competitive environment does show the modern challenges. The transit systems of today are not significantly “improved” from the turn of the century. However, back then, the primary “competition” would be walking and coaches – neither of which were feasible for long-term long-distance commuting. Transit systems that were integral to the lives of large populations were taken over by governments, while others were left to die. As a government service, does farebox collection really make sense?