Public transit demands more attention

Public transit systems, particularly those serving urban areas, are struggling. The COVID-19 pandemic, combined with a breakdown in law enforcement in some of America’s largest cities, converged to drive and keep riders away. Because public transit is the lifeblood of any urban economy, this is not good for America’s cities, creating significant financial shortfalls that raise questions of their short- and long-term viability.

Public transit systems in major cities are frequently subsidized by federal, state and local funds, in addition to fares collected. For some people, particularly low-income earners, public transit represents their primary mode of travel for getting to their jobs, as well as shopping for food and other necessities. For middle- and high-income earners, public transit is often used as a convenience, as a means to avoid rush hour traffic or access to limited parking in congested urban areas. 

European and Asian cities rely heavily on public transit. Many of their cities have high population densities, making public transit a logical choice. This means that a personal vehicle is frequently not needed. In contrast, U.S. cities often have large suburbs and urban sprawl, spreading people across a larger area footprint. This makes comprehensive public transit services more difficult to provide. 

Public transit use is also driven by economics. Gasoline prices in Europe and Asia are typically higher than in the United States, due in large part to higher taxes. Megacities in Europe and Asia also have air quality problems that are exacerbated by personal vehicles. Highly congested cities where space is at a premium means that parking can be problematic — and very expensive. London created congestion charge zones for vehicles to enter the primary city center at certain times. 

Public transit provides a public good and service. To expect it to be profitable is nonsensical. However, for it to remain a public good and service demand that it be utilized. 

One obstacle to usage is safety. Take for example the light rail system in Minneapolis. At one time, it was a well-used, convenient option to get to the downtown area directly north from the Minneapolis airport. Since 2019, the light rail Blue Line feels like a war zone, fraught with crime. This reputation keeps both residents and visitors away. With fewer users, revenue is reduced while costs continue to climb. Placing just one police officer on every train would be prohibitively expensive, yet without such safeguards, ridership will remain depressed. 

Another challenge for public transit during the COVID-19 pandemic was public health. Once masking became optional, many preferred not to find themselves on crowded buses or in subway cars with poor ventilation. This was particularly true among the most vulnerable populations, like seniors and those with health conditions that predispose them to poor outcomes if infected.

Public transit has also been a natural casualty of more people working remotely. The hollowing out of office buildings in urban areas means fewer riders and less revenue.

Ridesharing services like Lyft and Uber have become the primary competition of public transit. They offer safety and convenience not afforded by public transit. However, they are more expensive. Short term car rental services like Zipcar or carsharing systems also provide an alternative to public transit without the high fixed cost of owning a personal vehicle for some users. Even bicycle-sharing systems offer a choice that was unavailable just a few years ago.

So, should urban areas abandon the public transit model that they have invested in for decades? Will ridership ever return to pre-pandemic levels? 

Ending or curtailing public transit would be most felt by the people who can least afford to lose it and have the fewest resources to compensate for its loss. This means that the need for public transit will persist to enable low-income workers with the most reliable mode of transportation that they can afford. 

For those who use public transit when traveling in different cities, the creation of a universal pay card would better facilitate this. Given that every city requires its own unique payment structure, a universal public transit pay card would remove a barrier to simplify how fares are collected. 

Yet, there is even a better option. 

Some cities have initiated no fare public transit to encourage more ridership and reap the full benefits of such systems. The downside of this is the loss of revenue, which means that public transit as a public good and service requires alternative revenue sources to fund. However, if ridership is increased, the secondary benefits of less automobile traffic and cleaner air mean that revenue spent to enhance public transit is an investment with quality of life and public health benefits, not a cost.

Much like how preventive medicine saves health care costs in the future, public transit is akin to preventive medicine for the health of a community.

Independent of the economics, ensuring safety in public transit systems is a top priority. As it has been said, if you build it and secure it, they will come. This idea holds true with public transit.

Investing in public transit has never been an American priority. Yet, to reap all the benefits of public transit demands an all-out effort. The rest of the world has already earned their returns. Perhaps it is time for the United States to do so as well.

Sheldon H. Jacobson, Ph.D., is a professor of computer science at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. A data scientist, he applies his expertise in data-driven risk-based decision-making to evaluate and inform public policy. He has researched the benefits of public transit and its impact on reducing obesity.