This is a real tough knot of a problem to untangle. If the agency has a given number of buses and a given amount of funding, then service is zero-sum. Running more routes and more frequency in under-served areas sounds lovely, but without more funding, where are you taking that service from? This tradeoff is at the heart of all transit agencies’ decision-making. Jarrett Walker covers this well in “Human Transit.”
In lots of low-density metros, trying to provide wide coverage eats up so many resources that the most dense neighborhoods in the core don’t even get decent service, and then the whole system is so inconvenient to use that it perpetuates the idea that “the bus is for poor people.” It’s essential to provide some core service that is good enough that people with other options still WANT to use it.
A transit agency that is seen only as a heavily subsidized handout for poor people is going to have a much harder time getting voter support for increased funding than an agency that is seen as a useful way for people of all classes to get around.
Incredible point Logan! One of the things I'd like to see transit agencies look into and hopefully carry out is getting back into utilizing land purchases (ground leases) as a way to not only support their drivers and staffers but also be a more prominent piece of the community.
To my understanding far before public transit was so heavily subsidized, their real estate portfolios were how they kept the wheels rolling. With today's interest in mixed-used, I could see agencies purchasing land along their routes to serve as housing, enclosed stations with vendors (coffee, retail, etc.) as well as public restroom facilities. Currently, our drivers have to find small gaps in their routes to run into a business. This is poor experience for the drivers and ultimately, transit agencies who are struggling to keep or find new driver. I also would like to see a bigger push for community partnerships, seeing large employers or universities become more financially involved could help fill the gap particularly when for the universities sake, so many students rely on it since freshmen aren't allowed personal vehicles here first-year.
Yes definitely - since this tradeoff is a problem of funding, other revenue models are a great place to look. Universities have a strong interest in urbanism and have always been ahead of the curve on things like charging for parking, so they're a natural ally.
I think the real estate model has been nixed in the US due to wide-spread sentiment that developers and development are inherently morally suspect/corrupt. The model obviously works amazingly well in the places it is used, but government (in the form of transit agencies) becoming a more active player in real estate really requires a deep reckoning with our whole NIMBY problem.
Here in the Bay Area, BART owns some huge park-and-ride lots around suburban stations, and I would love to see BART crack open that can of worms. With how desperate the housing problem is here, and BART's revenue shortfalls since COVID, it would be such a common sense solution.
This is a real tough knot of a problem to untangle. If the agency has a given number of buses and a given amount of funding, then service is zero-sum. Running more routes and more frequency in under-served areas sounds lovely, but without more funding, where are you taking that service from? This tradeoff is at the heart of all transit agencies’ decision-making. Jarrett Walker covers this well in “Human Transit.”
In lots of low-density metros, trying to provide wide coverage eats up so many resources that the most dense neighborhoods in the core don’t even get decent service, and then the whole system is so inconvenient to use that it perpetuates the idea that “the bus is for poor people.” It’s essential to provide some core service that is good enough that people with other options still WANT to use it.
A transit agency that is seen only as a heavily subsidized handout for poor people is going to have a much harder time getting voter support for increased funding than an agency that is seen as a useful way for people of all classes to get around.
Incredible point Logan! One of the things I'd like to see transit agencies look into and hopefully carry out is getting back into utilizing land purchases (ground leases) as a way to not only support their drivers and staffers but also be a more prominent piece of the community.
To my understanding far before public transit was so heavily subsidized, their real estate portfolios were how they kept the wheels rolling. With today's interest in mixed-used, I could see agencies purchasing land along their routes to serve as housing, enclosed stations with vendors (coffee, retail, etc.) as well as public restroom facilities. Currently, our drivers have to find small gaps in their routes to run into a business. This is poor experience for the drivers and ultimately, transit agencies who are struggling to keep or find new driver. I also would like to see a bigger push for community partnerships, seeing large employers or universities become more financially involved could help fill the gap particularly when for the universities sake, so many students rely on it since freshmen aren't allowed personal vehicles here first-year.
Yes definitely - since this tradeoff is a problem of funding, other revenue models are a great place to look. Universities have a strong interest in urbanism and have always been ahead of the curve on things like charging for parking, so they're a natural ally.
I think the real estate model has been nixed in the US due to wide-spread sentiment that developers and development are inherently morally suspect/corrupt. The model obviously works amazingly well in the places it is used, but government (in the form of transit agencies) becoming a more active player in real estate really requires a deep reckoning with our whole NIMBY problem.
Here in the Bay Area, BART owns some huge park-and-ride lots around suburban stations, and I would love to see BART crack open that can of worms. With how desperate the housing problem is here, and BART's revenue shortfalls since COVID, it would be such a common sense solution.