Americans drove nearly 96 percent as many miles in May 2021 as in the same month in 2019, indicating a return to normalcy. Transit ridership, however, was only 42 percent of pre‐pandemic levels, which is making transit agencies desperate to justify their future existence and the subsidies they depend on to keep running.
This is from Randal O’Toole, “Transit’s Dead End,” Cato.org, July 13, 2021.
But does that mean that governments are reducing their subsidies to mass transit? Guess again.
O’Toole points out the basic problem with mass transit in the United States, almost all of which is run by, or heavily subsidized by, governments:
Transit’s real problem is that it is operating a nineteenth‐century business model in twenty‐first century cities. In 1890, when American cities were rapidly installing electric streetcars, most urban jobs were downtown and the streetcar lines radiated away from downtown hubs to bring people to work.
Today, only about 8 percent of jobs are in downtowns, and large urban areas such as Los Angeles or Houston have numerous job centers with as many and often more jobs than the traditional downtowns. Yet, in most urban areas, transit still has a hub‐and‐spoke system centered around the central city downtown. Demographer Wendell Cox’s analysis of census data show that, before the pandemic, transit carried about 40 percent of downtown commuters to work, but typically carried only about 5 percent of commuters to other major job centers.
READER COMMENTS
Mark Brady
Jul 13 2021 at 7:31pm
“Two facts about mass transit and cars.”
How about “Two facts about mass transit and car journeys on tax-financed and (mainly) unrestricted-access roads”?
Mark Z
Jul 13 2021 at 11:01pm
How exactly do you think mass transit is financed?
Mark Brady
Jul 14 2021 at 1:03am
Through tax finance and individuals paying (subsidized) fares. My comment was to highlight the fact that driving private cars on public roads built by federal, state, and county governments is not really a private alternative to mass transit. And it’s worth noting that “mass transit” may include for-profit coach operators that pay their way as much as private motorists do, and for-profit airlines.
Mark Z
Jul 14 2021 at 1:38am
Mostly it is financed via taxation. In order for driving to be truly analogous to mass-transit, the government would have to not merely pay for roads, but pay for most of our cars as well, and gasoline, and repairs and maintenance. The fraction of public transit costs that are offloaded to taxpayers is much higher than the fraction of driving costs, so the latter is indeed much more ‘privatized,’ even if not perfectly so.
Jon Murphy
Jul 14 2021 at 6:09am
Ah the good ol’ “You didn’t build that” argument.
The fact that many roads are built and maintained by government funding is irrelevant to the point of the post, which is about how the mass transportation structure is massively out of date for the current need structure
JK Brown
Jul 13 2021 at 8:05pm
I was reminded of the description of the Spanish colonial transportation in Mexico/Spanish Americas in an MRU course. It too was the hub and spoke model due to incentives to the government. Clinging to a long failed transportation system built for extracting silver proved critical to the reversal of fortune in Spanish Americas.
Chris
Jul 14 2021 at 12:10am
Another set of facts:
In the 19th century, nearly 100% of car trips are on subsidized roads.
In the 21st century post-pandemic, nearly 100% of car trips are on subsidized roads.
Why haven’t we learned to get rid of all roads in 140 years!?!?!
Chris
Jul 14 2021 at 12:12am
I should have also mentioned that the roads that were around in the 19th century now carry a small percentage of the overall car traffic compared to then, yet nearly all still exist.
Jon Murphy
Jul 14 2021 at 6:12am
I think you missed the point. The point is not that mass transportation is from the 19th Century and therefore a bad idea. The point is the hub and spoke system of mass transportation is an outdated model of transportation needs.
Alan Goldhammer
Jul 14 2021 at 7:21am
This is not a universal truth. Take a look at the DC Metro system. Originally set up to funnel workers to downtown Washington where most of the jobs were when the system was conceived in the late 1960s, large office developments sprung up around all of the Metro stops and continues today. I rode the Metro to work for 25 years and never considered driving which incurs large costs in terms of gasoline, auto maintenance/depreciation, and parking. My economic calculation was that it was far cheaper to take Metro to work than drive. Crowded trains at rush hour indicated that many others made the same decision.
robc
Jul 14 2021 at 7:30am
And it makes sense in certain large/dense cities. You would think DC Metro could be privatized and run at a profit. Same for NYC.
And yet….
Jon Murphy
Jul 14 2021 at 7:32am
Even with DC, the Metro has been hemorrhaging money for years. Ridership is way down. When I moved to the DMV, it caught fire with such regularity there was a website: ismetroonfiere.com.
In short, I’m not convinced the WMATA is the counterexample you want to use here
Chris
Jul 15 2021 at 1:31am
Sure, I can agree with that. But the same can be said for freeways built 60 years ago – in almost all cases they carry a much smaller percentage of overall metro vehicle-miles than they did at initial build, even if they’re choked with traffic now and have double the original volume.
My jab at the post was that looking at these things in percentage of overall commuters is useless.
Jon Murphy
Jul 15 2021 at 7:11am
Yeah I don’t follow your conclusion. Neither the original jab nor the freeway example explain your conclusion.
Chris
Jul 16 2021 at 1:03am
Sorry, I don’t follow your confusion.
Jon Murphy
Jul 16 2021 at 8:44am
My confusion is I don’t understand either your point or your reasoning on how you got there.
robc
Jul 14 2021 at 7:27am
The answer, to Mark and Chris, is to eliminate both sets of subsidies (and related taxes- such as gas tax) and see what develops.
Chris
Jul 15 2021 at 1:32am
Absolutely agree.
Thomas Lee Hutcheson
Jul 14 2021 at 9:11am
Mass transit (including busses, not just rail) lowers the congestion costs of vehicular traffic and should be on net subsidized, although the better way to do that would be by taxing the congestion instead of subsidizing the non-congestion.
Thomas Lee Hutcheson
Jul 14 2021 at 9:17am
This is just another example of mistakes made when trying to address economic policy w/o taking account of externalities. a persistent weak point of various writers on this site.
Jon Murphy
Jul 14 2021 at 9:43am
Given there have been numerous discussions of externalities on this site just in the past week, your statement is curious.
Jon Murphy
Jul 14 2021 at 9:44am
Ignoring the effects of mass transit is a frequent vice of those who claim carbon is an externality
Andrew_FL
Jul 14 2021 at 9:52am
By all means, Mark & Chris, let us privatize the roads, too!
Chris
Jul 15 2021 at 1:33am
Agree!
MarkW
Jul 15 2021 at 4:00pm
Roads are mostly paid for by user fees (fuel taxes mostly but also tolls). Mass-transit gets a very small percentage of funding from fares — the vast majority comes from subsidies (including monies redirected from fuel tax revenues). The idea that both transit and roads are subsidized to a degree doesn’t mean that it’s the same thing — the levels of government subsidies per passenger mile are vastly different.
But your argument that users should pay 100% isn’t going to get any pushback here so long as road user fees pay for roads and ONLY roads are not used as a transit slush fund (and we will need to impose electric vehicle fees to make up for the fuel taxes not being paid and end the free-rider problem we have now).
As for mass transit, if fares were raised to cover all construction and operating costs, ridership would drop to zero almost everywhere (American mass transit is that inefficient in construction and operation and it is that that lightly used).
David Henderson
Jul 15 2021 at 8:00pm
Exactly, MarkW. Indeed, this discussion might motivate me to write a whole article, not just a blog post, on the numbers. They’re not close.
Chris
Jul 16 2021 at 1:07am
Not many municipalities levy fuel taxes, so I disagree that local roads are funded by user fees. In fact, in most cases local transit is MORE funded by user fees (fares) compared to local roads.
Freeways used to be largely funded by user fees like the gas tax, but that has become much less true over the last 30 years as the gas tax has declined because of not being indexed to inflation, meaning more and more freeway funding comes from general funds (or more likely is borrowed).
Mark Z
Jul 16 2021 at 12:07pm
Yeah, where I live (a very public transit-oriented city) fares only cover like a quarter of *operating* costs, the rest is taxes (if certain politicians have their way it will eventually be entirely taxes). If fares quadrupled, even here ridership would collapse. The only way one can portray driving as anywhere near as subsidized as trains is if one pretends roads are the sole cost, and ignore the cost of buying and maintaining (or renting) a car. If all subsidies were gotten rid of for both driving and mass transit, if anything it tip the scales way more toward driving.
Chris
Jul 16 2021 at 4:52pm
I was simply responding to the roads point. Local roads are funded through property taxes or sales tax nearly everywhere, with a small amount of money derived from car tabs in some locales (which is a type of user fee). Whether or not that’s good or bad is beside the point, local roads are not primarily funded by user fees, where local transit often is at least partially funded by user fees.
To be clear, my primary mode of transit is walking (live in a dense area of SF most of the time, and in a small mountain town the rest of the time, both of which are nice places to walk for most needs), and I’m often in favor of subsidizing better walking infrastructure.
Maniel
Jul 14 2021 at 11:30am
California is home to a transportation system based on automobiles and highways. Californians drive about 180 billion vehicle miles per year. Merriam-Webster defines mass transit as “the transportation of large numbers of people by means of buses, subway trains, etc., especially within urban areas; also: the system, vehicles…” [Webster1] Based on extent and use, the California transportation system meets the mass-transit definition.
I like it because it allows me to go when, where, and with whom I want. The non-driver in my family uses Uber. There’s a thought – subsidize Uber (and Lyft).
Floccina
Jul 14 2021 at 1:50pm
As vehicles get safer will people one day start to drive tiny vehicles to beat the traffic. I’m thinking of vehicles like the Tango car and the BNW c1 200, that can wade through traffic to a certain extent.
Comments are closed.