Really enjoyed this essay, especially this conclusion: "Transit cannot be disconnected from land use realities. The two are intertwined and feed off one another." I totally agree and it should be mandatory learning on day one for anyone working on transport policy.
One element I would ponder is the importance of profitability. If we think that there are wider economic (including environmental) benefits from public transport provision, then some level of subsidy should be optimal. Of course maximum taxpayer value should always be sought, including in the interaction with land use.
Another problem with sprawling transit systems is that it becomes more difficult to provide a "metro" style service to most of the route due to capacity constraints - medium-long distance services (primarily used by wealthier commuters) cannibalise capacity that could otherwise be used more intensely nearer the core (serving more people in a greater range of economic circs). And because wealthier commuters tend to be the most profitable customers (to some degree they are in a distress purchase position as they are less likely to be able to switch to cycling/walking/bus, and driving into a major city is typically unattractive) they tend to command more of the managerial focus from the service provider to maximise revenue (I expect competing with the WFH may make this even more true).
Thank you James! I totally follow your logic on profitability strain. I wonder if there are examples of world class transit that is profitable sans any help (capital or ops). Maybe I will punt this question to Reece next time I see him…
It's a very interesting question. My (not very reliable) understanding is that there is no public transport *system* that is profitable on fares revenue alone. But the accounting is tricky and done differently by every nation/company, so some operations (e.g. Hong Kong/Japan) look profitable because they take into account rental revenue from oversite/near-station development (and/or because some overheads/infrastructure costs are washed off the books somewhere). That said, there are almost certainly particular transport routes between high demand stations that could be profitable for a cost/revenue optimised level of service.
Really enjoyed this essay, especially this conclusion: "Transit cannot be disconnected from land use realities. The two are intertwined and feed off one another." I totally agree and it should be mandatory learning on day one for anyone working on transport policy.
One element I would ponder is the importance of profitability. If we think that there are wider economic (including environmental) benefits from public transport provision, then some level of subsidy should be optimal. Of course maximum taxpayer value should always be sought, including in the interaction with land use.
Another problem with sprawling transit systems is that it becomes more difficult to provide a "metro" style service to most of the route due to capacity constraints - medium-long distance services (primarily used by wealthier commuters) cannibalise capacity that could otherwise be used more intensely nearer the core (serving more people in a greater range of economic circs). And because wealthier commuters tend to be the most profitable customers (to some degree they are in a distress purchase position as they are less likely to be able to switch to cycling/walking/bus, and driving into a major city is typically unattractive) they tend to command more of the managerial focus from the service provider to maximise revenue (I expect competing with the WFH may make this even more true).
Thank you James! I totally follow your logic on profitability strain. I wonder if there are examples of world class transit that is profitable sans any help (capital or ops). Maybe I will punt this question to Reece next time I see him…
It's a very interesting question. My (not very reliable) understanding is that there is no public transport *system* that is profitable on fares revenue alone. But the accounting is tricky and done differently by every nation/company, so some operations (e.g. Hong Kong/Japan) look profitable because they take into account rental revenue from oversite/near-station development (and/or because some overheads/infrastructure costs are washed off the books somewhere). That said, there are almost certainly particular transport routes between high demand stations that could be profitable for a cost/revenue optimised level of service.
Excellent analysis & read! Well done, Fei!