Skip to main content

Public Transit Problems

Last week David Alpert and I ran a post over at Greater Greater Washington about the cost of commuting by car vs. public transit. There's a lot going on in the post, including the point I make toward the end about changing variables - a point that goes mostly ignored among the many comments.

(from Flickr user nj dodge)

I hear it over and over again, every time a transit agency raises fares or cuts service, people cry foul, then threaten to switch to driving. It happens like clockwork. Some even go as far to make comments like, "these changes are so terrible that everybody is going to start driving!

I wrote on this same topic last summer:
These threatening comments illustrate an elementary error that people make in every day game theory: they consider what's in their best interest while ignoring what everyone else might do. See, if a monthly subway pass goes up by $20, then I might personally be better off driving in a car... but only if nobody else comes to that same conclusion.
In a city like Washington or New York or Chicago, which are already notorious for traffic and congestion, if everyone who used public transportation switched to driving, the result would be utter chaos. Even if it were true that driving was slightly cheaper before everyone came to this realization, it would absolutely not be true after they took action.

For transit systems in crisis, the decision always boils down to a question of service cuts, fare hikes, or a combination of both. In almost every case, service cuts are the worse outcome.

Dan Malouff does a good job explaining that service cuts lead to a death spiral that can devastate a system. While people gripe about fare hikes, service cuts cause real damage to peoples’ lives. You need to look no further than New York City - the city with America's "best" transit system - to see how life has changed for people after MTA killed two subway lines and numerous bus lines to preserve fares at their current level.

Service cuts are so devastating because they leave people without real options. Fare hikes are less dangerous than they often appear to be because inflation causes the price of everything, including driving, to increase over time. We can look at inflation-adjusted fares over time, but that’s only a useful exercise if we also look at the inflation-adjusted cost of alternatives.

Ultimately, fare hikes upset people and they make driving look more attractive. But as people take to their cars, a new equilibrium is established. Service cuts, on the other hand, push people into cars without giving people a real (even if more expensive) alternative. This is bad for commuters, and it’s really bad for cities.

Comments

efc said…
I don't know, Rob. In places that I've seen public transit really work (like Vienna, Austria), the choice is never between fare hikes and service cuts. In fact, in Vienna they now have a greater percentage of the population using public transit than driving their own cars and are considering making transit free (not that this is likely to actually happen any time soon).

I don't think we in the US have any idea what responsible public transit can be. We have systems that maybe just might share GPS data so we can know just how late that next bus will be. Responsible transit runs on time and posts schedules at every stop. We have systems that struggle for upgraded equipment, responsible systems rotate new equipment in every year, no big deal. We have cities that debate cutting service or upping price, responsible cities realize that transit is essential lifeblood to a vibrant economy and truly invest in it.

What we need is to encourage greater ridership. Neither increasing costs nor decreasing services has any chance to do that. The real failure is believe that these are the only two options we have.
Peter said…
i don't even think it's necessary to talk about what 'other people' will do in the case of service cuts -- i maintain that people who take transit don't drive, because they can't afford to drive, or it's still so much more expensive to drive than use a limited transit service. there are some exceptions to the rule, but the 'service cuts will make people drive' is just untrue -- a fantastic fantasy.

but further, people who take transit are more likely to start walking and biking and possibly even carpool than they are to start driving -- a scenario which has been playing out in cities across the country, including San Francisco. this trend will continue.

also, we need to give people the option to walk and bike, so service cuts aren't so devastating in the future. if a service cut happens in a place that is very walkable and bikeable, at least folks still have a way to get around. and, importantly, we should be providing people a way to walk and bike, first. forget transit and driving -- they're both garbage. if and when we solve the problem of allowing people to walk and bike places, _then_ we can start thinking about the 'transit' or 'driving' problems.

Infrastructure is destiny!

Popular posts from this blog

In Praise of Southwest's 'C' Boarding Group

A few weeks ago I saw a tweet from someone complaining that their Southwest Airlines boarding pass had been assigned A20 (meaning they would be at least one of the first twenty passengers to board the plane). Apparently this person though they should have been assigned a higher number, less their flight experience be considerably spoiled.

Despite the complaints, Southwest has resisted demands to assign seats on its flights, a decision which I personally applaud. I'll admit that I was skeptical when they rolled out the newest boarding procedure, assigning both boarding groups and a line number; but in hindsight it seems like one of the best operational decisions they've ever made. If nothing else, it effectively eliminated the infamous "cattle call" whereby fliers were getting to airports hours in advance and sitting in line on the floor as if they were waiting for the midnight showing of the new Star Wars movie.

When I was an intern at Southwest Airlines last winter, I…

So You Want to be a Southwest Airlines Intern?

My personal website must have pretty decent SEO - because in the past year, I've received about two dozen emails from aspiring Southwest Airlines interns looking to draw on my experience in search of their own dream internship. In the past two weeks alone a few new emails have already started rolling in...

(from flickr user San Diego Shooter)

If you've found your way here, you might be hoping for the silver bullet; a secret tip that will propel you above the competition. Unfortunately, I do not know any inside secrets. I can only share my experience as an internship candidate about two years ago and, rather than responding individually to future emails I anticipate to receive, I hope that potential interns will find the information posted here valuable.

Understand: Southwest Airlines is a very unique company. The corporate culture at Southwest is truly unlike that of nearly every other company. But you probably already knew that, since it now seems mandatory for every management,…

Good Advertising

The blogosphere seems to be one fire over Microsoft's new "Lauren" TV commercial. Frankly, I don't see what the commotion is about.



If the critics are correct, then "Lauren" is actually Lauren De Long, a Screen Actors Guild eligible actress; and apparently, if you look close enough, she never even enters the Apple store.

Even if all of that is true, it doesn't refute the fact that Apple's laptops are significantly more expensive than most PCs. It isn't a lie that Apple doesn't sell any 17-inch laptops for less than a grand. The advertisement doesn't make any reference to the quality of the machines (or contest any of the claims made in Apple's "I'm a PC" commercials) or provide any good reason to buy one other than price.

As far as I can tell, after years of horrible commercials and a series of flops, Microsoft seems to finally have hired an ad agency that put together a decent advertisement. It's not likely to persuad…