Transit Doesn't Need to Profit 

Weird how subsidized (and free at point-of-use!) highways and roads are seen as "good" despite being massively expensive and not turning a profit whereas transit is just seen as an economic detriment even if farebox recovery is high. Neoliberalism can do weird things to thought processes.

Here in Germany all local public transit is subsidized by the state. The only exception are the Intercity and ICE trains as well as the few other comparable services by other companies. This is deemed normal here, and new projects aren't assessed on profitability for the transit agency, but in profitability for the whole economy! Germany obviously has its own problems, but at least this is something we do have figured out. And the 49€ ticket is obviously another great way to push ticket prices down with more subsidizing

So much this, it’s so annoying that people expect it to make direct profit. Do you expect roads to make profit? It’s been proven that good infrastructure boosts the economy in so many other ways

Well public transit should be considered as a utility like water and electricity, and not some kind of luxury. The money spent on a well-designed transit system can be earned back mostly by taxes and not fares.

I like to imagine just how much better transit could be overall, if we divided the money used for car infrastructure more fairly towards public transit that can serve a lot more people more efficiently 🤔

It's always been a silly requirement because roads are never expected to make money and no sane government would allow for cars if their maintenance and fuel was meant to be covered by taxes.I'm also glad you mentioned we still would have some roads because seemingly on every transit video ever someone seems to think pointing out how much better almost any other mode of transit is means we want to dump every car in the ocean and tear up the roads for dirt bike trails.

Well said, Reece. I drive most places because I live in the outskirts of the GTHA but I also know that money will have to get spent anyway. Rather than spending $9B on a highway that will only serve a portion of the area if we used that money to build more and better transit we actually take drivers off the road and generate income to help maintain that infrastructure. You don’t get that same luxury when building new highways. Plus like I said, transit expansions help the whole area its connected to whereas a new highway does not.

One thing to consider, is that a good public transport system can save the community a lot of money and time, by forcing public and private projects to study where to be located, which in turn makes the public transport system more efficient. And here's the thing: if you only consider car trips, with just being connected to a highway the developer may think it's enough, but if you take into account public transport trips, you need to consider how the system behaves (capacity, frequency, reliability, etc). And if we're talking about a public project, such as a public university, or a change in zoning regulations to allow for housing projects in a new area, they need to coordinate with transport officials to make sure the system will behave properly.

Big externality you missed, the time lost to congestion. Also, the mental health effects of being in road rage mode for hours a day. Edit: Adding injuries and death, and the medical and legal bills associated

Transit externalizes its "profit" to the community. A good example of this is real estate values. When a rapid transit station pops up, development and prices go up around the stations! Look at Bay Ridge in Brooklyn for example. Before it had a subway, Bay Ridge had nothing...the surrounding area of the R stations exploded because of the subway. Not to mention making the jump to make transit free is very much possible. That's what Luxembourg did, where it's ALL (buses, trains, trams) been free since 2020! In 2020, Luxembourg had the highest car density in the EU, 696 per 1,000 people versus the average 560. The country has suffered from bad traffic and high levels of climate-heating emissions as a result. And it's paid for through their taxes! By eliminating a mode of transit because it's not profitable, then you're isolating so many people. When a government puts profit over people, that tells me everything I need to know about how much they actually care. And of course it wouldn't be profitable if the government isn't doing enough to provide not only convenient transit that takes people where they wanna go but also pedestrian infrastructure, because adding a simple sidewalk and shelters can go a long way.

As long as car-centric infrastructure *doesn't* make a profit, then *nobody including me* should give one F about public transit making a profit either...

Love the Elizabeth line bag guy going up the down escalator at 1:20

MTR not only operates or sells in other countries like Sweden, the UK, and Australia, but also just across the Pearl River Delta in Macau! There, they're building a LRT. During Portuguese rule, Macau didn't have a mass transit system, and so in 2002, the SAR government proposed a LRT and entrusted the MTR in doing a study, building, and operating it. The original proposal was criticized for not being cost-effective and obstructing views, and so it was temporarily shelved in 2003 before being revived in 2005 when a second study by MTR recommended a mixed underground and elevated system with three lines: an Airport Line, Macau-Taipa Line, and a peninsula encirclement line. Construction work for it began in 2012, starting with the Taipa Line opening in December 2019 (which also serves the airport). The Macau Peninsula will have two lines circling it, one for the western side (Porto Interior Line) and one for the east side (Macau Peninsula Line). The Taipa Line extends to Barra station on the peninsula so it would connect with these two lines. There will also be a line to Coloane from Hospital das Ilhas station on the Taipa Line, a line that will go over to Hengqin in Mainland China from Lotus Bridge station on the Taipa Line, a line connecting the Macau Outer Ferry Terminal to the HKZM Bridge Checkpoint (to serve bus passengers to or from HK), and an East Line that goes through the New Urban Zone.

Here in Mumbai, one simply can't imagine life without public transport systems

The most important video I’ve seen this week. This is what I’m constantly telling people. It’s worth it from the perspective of health, cost, transportation efficiency…

I think this is one thing South Korean transit systems get right -- all the payment stuff is integrated and extremely cheap. You can get from one end of Seoul to the other end with 4 transfers from buses to subways and back for quite literally a total of 1-2 dollars, and it makes a huge difference compared to other systems I've experience even in places with amazing (and otherwise much better) transit systems like Japan.

“My skyscrapers sure are making me a lot of money, from the rent that people and businesses pay me to locate there. But you know what’s not making money? The elevators! Maybe I don’t need elevators in my skyscrapers after all…”. Flip the skyscrapers on their sides so that the elevators run horizontally, and make them even bigger than they were, and you’ve got transit and transit oriented development. The “elevators” don’t make money, but if they weren’t there, the “skyscrapers” wouldn’t.

Highways are public transportation projects, yet when tolls are raised by $1 or just a hint of raising the gas tax (which is low in the US), people go apesh*t over it

I like when transit systems sell commercial space in order to raise money like in Hong Kong and it also means we get nice restaurants for quick food, that is very convenient

Also in my city (Milan) the transportation system is really good and it still makes money

I don't want an expensive electric car to replace my aging gasoline car in the near future. I just want fast and reliable public transportation. That's my dream. P.S. You have dreamy eyes

Reece mentioned Japanese commuter railways as examples of profitable operations. Well, sort of... in the case of many/most major metropolitan private operators their rail lines run at a loss or at par. However the groups these railways belong to are profitable and many are quoted on the Tokyo Stock Exchange. This happens because the companies have activities which are parallel and synergic to the railway operations - real estate, retail, buses, taxis, gas stations, stadiums (even baseball teams!), amusement parks, even swimming schools - which help round up revenues. The best analogy is that to a boned fish - the spine is the railway and the flesh are the subsidiary businesses. Take the flesh away and the fish dies, as the spine (railway ops) is not self-supporting; take the spine away and you are left with a bunch of businesses without synergy between them.

11:03 you have a reaction channel? Where can i find it?

in the UK outside of London (aka a deregulated anarchy), bus operators are so obsessed with profit that they literally create a "survival of the -fittest- most profitable": they completely cut the unprofitable routes causing outrage for lots of people who suddenly lose (possibly their only) bus services

People who use cars when they can easily use public transport, walk or bike are a menace to society.

Just had this debate - work is 8 miles away takes between 22 and 30 minutes to drive - transit option 1:20 - but to be in work for start of the day I need to get on the bus 2 hours before work, and getting home likewise I lose another 40 minutes. The walk between home and office and nearest stops is not excessive. But sometimes time and convenience of stopping to see a family member on the way home is better than transit. Don’t get me wrong I love transit solutions, but in certain situations they do not work.

Out of all the things that the government subsidies, subsidized public transport sounds the best to me. I can get to work easily, that in itself is a big plus to anyone working.

I strongly believe in public transport being publically owned, no profit goal, if the net on the whole breaks even, that's good enough. any further gains should be reinvested to make it better, or slash the prices.

Another example of transit profitability would be TrentBarton, a *bus* company that operates around Nottingham & Derby in the UK. A majority of their routes are what are known as commercial routes, meaning they receive no subsidy from the government to operate the service, its purely profit, although this does mean they can cut said bus services if they become unprofitable, there are alternates available in most places and such events are fairly infrequent. And this is all done while they provide comfortable seats, USB ports and WiFi on most buses, all while also following the £2 regular fare cap that has been recently introduced across the UK. Nevermind the fact they provide a really friendly and often really frequent (as low as 7-8mins, might seem low to some but its really good for UK standards, even London buses don't operate at such high frequencies) and that they brand almost every route uniquely.

Did anyone catch the dude about to go up the *down* escalator at 1:20?

Public transit should be supported by the government if mostly, it brings most benefits to society and the environment. If encouraged, our public transit can improve because of its demand.

I find trains are usually quite effective, but my experience with buses is mixed. Buses usually arrive massively late, get stuck in the same traffic as cars, and cost more per kilometre than a train for the user. I do use the bus from time to time, but wouldn’t get rid of my car if I only had access to a bus service

Fun thing, DSB, national operator of Denmark, is actually profitable. They made an annual profit of about 28 million USD in 2023. Already in the first quarter of 2024, that was now 15 million. They no longer rely on the government for funding. This is even after a huge contract with Alstom for new trains, and new Vectron locomotives

I will dare to day that if a system is making some money, or even breaks even then awesome, but it's more of the cherry on top of the cake. The main goal is different.

So many people really don't seem to understand infrastructure properly, especially when it starts to exist on a nation/society/civilization level, (or even just city level, sometimes). The job of infrastructure is to ENABLE and SUPPORT life and productive activity, rather than replace it. But if you siphon too much from society for it, usually in terms or additional profit, that's exactly what you get. Healthcare, education, aswell as utilities etc. are also all infrastructure!

I noticed you mentioned the cost per passenger moved. I'd love to see this broken down more to see how scale and other factors affect this cost and see this carried out over different transit modes. Thinking about upfront costs and maintenance costs also sounds cool, including externalities. Your videos are super awesome. Love the technical nature. It would be super cool to see some more focus on metrics as this can help make convincing arguments. Thanks for your work!

5:30 That's the wildest segue ever. I will use it every time I can.

Could you please do a video explainer on the Melbourne Trams, I heard you said you would do it in the Melbourne explained video, and I think it’s a great idea, as it is the largest in the world!

Unfortunately the Car and Oil-dependent infrastructure lobby keeps the government from making accessible pt among any other essential service like healthcare and education.

The lack of profitability complaint is ironic given all of the hyper-capitalist startup companies that are famously unprofitable at launch. And the reasoning given for lack of profits actually supports the argument for investing in better public transportation services. Companies will say they are losing money in order to gain customers and market share and eventually that growth will become profitable. The same can be true for public transportation. No it might not make financial sense on face value for a city to build out the transportation network to lower-density areas. But if the network can reach everyone then it encourages ridership volume at the level where the system might be profitable. The busiest routes offsetting the cost of those that serve fewer people.

Great video!

The same argument applies to the issue of Amtrak "making money". Passenger rail advocates make the point that Amtrak is a "service" provided by government and not a business entity, just like the National Weather Service or FEMA is a service by your government for the betterment of its' people. No one ever questions why those two Federal agencies don't turn a profit, so they shouldn't question the profitability of Amtrak either!

Profit usually means more demand then supply and find ways to be more efficient. Public transportation systems are theoretically more efficient , if you have lots of full vehicles and routes between only major population centers. The reality is the systems are very inefficient needing to run nearly empty vehicles and having routes to remote and less populated areas. The need for special infrastructure and specific vehicles just add to the limited use. Critics of PTS , stating it can’t make a profit to support itself are simplifying pointing the high costs of operations to the users funding. All transport is partially funded through taxes and fees, yet PTS is the only system so heavily dependent on that funding, today and historically. Aircraft and personal motor vehicle systems are paying for themselves, through fares , taxes, fuel taxes, and licensing fees. If PTS can find a way to be more efficient ,flexible, and profitable it will grow and stop being a debt burden.

I think there’s a lot more to be said about the cultural double standard between roads and public transit, especially in North America. People will make a big deal about the cost of a new transit project, but nobody really bats an eye at road expansion projects that cost millions or billions of dollars. And nobody expects roads or highways to be profitable, either. Even transit systems with pretty low cost recovery are going to be far more “profitable” than road systems, simply because they charge a fare, which society has come to expect as normal. The expectation of free parking in cities is also a huge double standard. Here in Halifax, the city recently started charging for downtown parking on Saturdays (it was previously free on weekends). There’s been no shortage of public backlash, of course, from folks who expect to store their private property (cars) on valuable public land for free. And yet, transit users have always had to pay a fare 7 days a week to get downtown… which is fine, but why should we have to pay to get on a bus if they don’t have to pay to park their car? (Side note: parking is still free on Sundays so far, so it would sure be nice if transit was free on Sundays too, just saying…)

I live in a regional city in Australia called Albury/Wodonga which is the second most car dependant region in the country. It basically has bus services but also has regional train services Linking Melbourne and Sydney as well as a few intertown bus services that operate a few times a day. Some people (family members and relatives included) tell me that the system needs to be profitable. I'd argue that it doesn't have to be as services are subsidised by the state governments. Many services in the city i live in often run empty. And the network is in a need of a major overhaul. Many locals I know are very well aware that our bus network needs upgrading. I often try to tell people to use public transport if they can, problem with that is, many trips can't be done by bus because its too inconvenient for most people to use, it only just caters for 9-5 workers and people who go shopping during the day. Still, it fails to do what it was designed for and there has been no major changes to Wodonga for several decades, Albury only had changes just recently in January 2023, where routes were simplified as well as a brand new route Linking the Airport and the suburb of Thurgoona. The two routes to Thurgoona are timetabled really well. and Thurgoona effectively gets one bus every half an hour. Albury's frequencies of its routes and operating hours are so much better than what Wodonga has. Albury still has improvements needed, If im in charge, I would have added a loop service around Lavington and Massive overhaul for Wodonga, Id also improve on Services connecting the smaller towns such as Beechworth, Corowa, and Tallangatta and introduce new services to the towns of Tangambalanga, Jindera and Bellbridge. I'd love to see your perspective on bus services in Albury/Wodonga. We really need to see more bus services in our region. We also need major modifications to infrastructure too to put more people on buses too and make it safer for everyone, not just those who drive a car. Albury/Wodonga as a region has around 100K people, there are cities similar in size to Albury/Wodonga that have better Public Transport systems.

Public transport should be a boost for economics, not a pillar for it

The neoliberal terminology of “public/private partnerships” is best put in the dustbin of history, an incinerator would be even better. Governments and private businesses are not partners. Partnerships suggests that two or more parties are on an equal level. Governments are the boss of the private companies that may be contracted to provide specific goods and/or services. The government’s role is on behalf of the general population. A company’s role is on behalf of its owners and investors. To call it a “partnership” is an attempt to concede public power to private interests. Because public transportation systems are a specialized endeavor, metropolitan areas typically do not have the staff and equipment within their institutions to construct such infrastructure. Although, it is theoretically possible to create a national institution for such projects. So, private companies are contracted. The profits for the private company are a sacrifice for the public good. These are infrastructure expenses. Much of the other ongoing expenses associated with public transportation systems can be done by the city, depending on the size of the city. Obviously a city would most likely not produce replacement buses or trains for example. The idea is limit the dependence on private companies as much as possible for the reasons previously mentioned. If a city can not generate enough tax income to pay for the infrastructure expenses they may require funding from state or national government sources.

Why should public transit me money? This is because not that many years ago most public transit systems were owned and operated by private companies. They generally made a profit till the late 1950’s to early 1960’s. What changed? More people decided to own cars or buy a second car thus reducing the ridership on the existing transit lines. Also around that time many manufacturing jobs began to disappear in the United States. So again demand for transit service began to decline. Many local governments at that time also were against fare increases to help support the existing service. So profit making companies did what most would do, cut service or even eliminate service on less used lines. That also caused many transit systems not have enough money to modernize their equipment. So that eventually caused most if not all transit service become a government run service. But that old fashion thoughts that transit service should at least break even or operate at a surplus did not die with the transition to government operation. As you mentioned in the video government does not expect other services to make money or roads other than toll road or bridges to break even or have a surplus. So the thinking needs to change to take into account the many good points you made to evaluate the true value and cost of public transit service. Good service will be used by many people. Sub par service is why many transit services get a bad reputation for usefulness!

Alright Reece, let's hear that country pop music album.

Not even Uber makes money, and yet those are still everywhere...

we see pipes, sewers, powerlines as public good, not requiring profit, but as soon as a person can use infrastructure directly to travel, it's seen as a privilege, a competition. we don't have alternative means of delivering electricity, but we constantly prioritize a less economically sensible way to travel over rail. prioritizing cars over rail is like insisting we transport electricity in batteries first, then consider whether it can be done better by transmission line after. cities should prioritize rail as soon as it's big enough to pay for it. a network of rails should be the primary network of transit.

Public Transit "should" be able to be profitable- in terms of being able to comfortably cover Day-to-Day costs, with Capital Expenditures funded by the Public [I.E.: Facility Upgrades, general Infrastructure Upgrades & Fleet Upgrades = Public Funding. Maintenance, Employee Wages and Benefits & Fuel = Farebox and Auxiliary Revenues (Merchandising, Advertising, and even Charters and special Seasonal Services- regulations and laws permitting).]. It's not unrealistic to expect that much; a model like this, would be more palatable to the public- on the topic of Public Transit and Public Transit Expansion.

You should be able to afford it tho. Case in point: Addis Ababa Light Rail. It's dirt cheap (like cents for a ride) and has run into major cost issues, so much so that they don't have the money to repair the vehicles they're using

Bus driver here. My bus consumes 3-5x more fuel than the average car and carry’s 55-85 people (seated, 72-100 standing). Much, much more efficient!

The irony of comparing buses to local sewers highlights the downside of accessibility. Public transit is a public space, and we seem to as a society have decided that accessibility takes precedence over user experience and turned it into rolling homeless shelters and insane asylums, driving away users.

I think transit should be profitable, or at least have the potential because it has lots of benefits if it is. One, being it's easier to tell a city board that the project can pay itself off later on down the road and it just needs to be started. Two, less tax burden on the working class. Three, it isn't as subject to budget cuts when the city is low on funds because why would you remove a revenue source? The benefits of profitable transit are tangible. In my eyes, subsidizing transit allows a company to downsize its service to the money given to them and it is much more easier to be stagnant and stay afloat then thrown cold turkey and actually improve your service to make people want to ride it.

Even london where allmost all expenditure is covered from fairs with tube subsadising buses but now that means tram etc. projects that serve affordable communities are canceled, the only expansion is payed for by expensive developments while most of the network wasw aquired threw nationalisation and largly originally payed for by greenfields development which is no longer feasable. Also if you wan't to see what goes wrong with applying capitalism to public transport, look at british railway history, we had people building line just to stop other line and needless duplicated route and incompatible gauges galore.

Public transport is an essential community service should not be commerialised and operate using a cost recovery business model backed with a mixture of fare box, local and central. Government subsidies. A humble 34/38 seat single deck 2 axle urban bus can remove up to 34/38 non essential cars of the road per journey.

Great video with great points. The last sentence says it all.

The reason that the Underground lines in London needed government approval wasn't just so they could build a railway, but because they'd need compulsory purchase orders in order to buy the land and/or tunnelling rights to do so. If they could buy the land without then they could build a railway without approval, but only parliament can approve compulsory purchase so that's why these lines had to be approved.

I’m very surprised that an average bus costs $700,000, and yet they’re so bad.

Lisbon metro is expanding right now. Part of the lines are closed until July. You could make a video about the Portuguese Capital Metro Transport system 😊 it integrates with buses, trains, trams and even BOATS 😊

In Australia public transport is generally subsidised sometimes by over 90% of operating costs. But yet it is considered an essential part of infrastructure in Australian cities. This side of the equation is not questioned as cheap transport encourages more public transport use.

I take the bus to go to work every business day. My only concern doing this has only ever been getting to the bus stop on time and not loosing my bus pass. I am normally home like 2 5minutes after I leave work. I also have never been robbed, ever encountered a homeless or mentally ill person, been assaulted in any way. So I save a buck load of money and hassle doing this. In the mornings since I'm always half a sleep I literally have 0 worries as just doze off unless there are chatty people on the bus. That's literally the most annoying thing I've encountered taking the bus around 10 times a week for a year and a half.and it costs me 30 euros a month while a monthly parking spot for a car would cost me at least 50 euros a month. Taking the bus is the only option that makes sense.

Chapeau, Reece! Also here in Germany we should learn that.

No public or personal transport can really make money, so best to go with the ones that lose the least. The problem is, it's cheaper for one person to drive than to get a train, even more so for 4 people taking one car.

As in Hong Kong, it's totally normal to expect public transport making $$, while at the same time, peoples ALWAYS complains public transport for making lots of $$, while I think ordinary transport fee is not actually that high.

I "love" these arguments so much. Public transit should make money! - Should all roads be tolled by miles traveled? Or like you said with sewers, should we charge your for the poop volume you produce? Our cities aren't built for public transit! - Instead of adding a lane to you highway, add at least a bus line, or better yet a rail line, along the same route that's already established. Bam, your city is now built for transit. It's all the people that just wanna argue.

Most of the bridges and tunnels into NYC were paid for long long ago, yet they still have tolls, this money does cover some maintenance costs but most of it is used to subsidize the city transit systems that despite having millions of riders each day, consistently are billions in the red. I am not talking about the absurd capital cost to build any new features on these system but merely the day to day operating cost. Back in the day (once upon a time), the city's private transit operators built and operated the system and made money doing it and did so on fares of about one nickel. When the city took over the first order of business was to increase the fare. You and I are both very interested in and understanding of public transit but I am trained as a city planner and a city organizer and thus think about other problems in city government such as police, fire, school, facilities maintenance, and bring new people and new business into the city to maintain and expand the tax base that pays for it all. It is understood that not all transit passengers are equal in their financing and we can't price out the poor but neither should we excessively subsidize the rich. I don't want transit system to be the last resort that only poor folks use since that spells 'poor transit'. The NYC system is so costly because it still operates at manning levels required by the technology of the 1930s while the labor unions have cranked up wage levels that exceed most airline pilots (747 captains excluded) that in addition to pay include good health benefits and an early retirement system that is even better than France. Asking for some return on investment isn't asking too much, not a profit but cover a significant part of direct operating costs.

so roads and transit could be seen as a 'cost center' like the call center you call to get your phone stuff fixed? i can get behind that.

After spending 3 years in Japan and getting around without a car on their somewhat excellent rail network, I'll be returning to California next year. I'm looking forward to the 'freedom' of being able to go directly to where I want, but I remember needing to plan my day around traffic patterns, pay for gas, maintain a junk car.. all that stuff. I've had pipe dreams of maybe going back to school to try and figure out a way to bring some kind of Japanese-ish transit system over to my home in LA or San Diego.. places that could benefit from a really good transit system. Kind of a big dream, but I don't even know where I would start. Do I start studying Engineering to.. make trains? Do I get into politics so I control the levers of where money goes? Videos like this are helping me figure out what's the problem that needs to be fixed, but mannn.

The Norwegian government owns (and keep their hands off) the airport express train "Flytoget". It operates without any subsidies, cost more than the local subsidized train run by the government, and keeps on turning a tidy profit. So it can.

It needs to be profitable in the sense of, if it is a multi-billion dollar project, are we just throwing that money away? That's a lot of money that could be spent on other things, right? Usually the same people who say "infinite budget for public transit" are the same people who say "infinite budget for taking care of the homeless"....(and I agree that both causes have merit, being center-left)....except budgets aren't infinite, and anything you spend on one can't be spent on the other. RMTransit, are you living on your own somewhere, having to pay rent from your job? If so, are there not things you want but you can't get them because you can't afford them? The government is the same.

Also in public trasport it is absolutelly necessary to have a propper controlling to prevent useless waste (and prevent tax money floating into private pockets...). But it is a difference between burning money and invest it in an useful manner, where everyone profits. Or let's say it the other way round: the profit of public transit is not of financial matter. No, public transport does not need to make money. It is a service - no one ever complained about the military making a loss or being in debt...

the question should be if and where it makes money, delivering customers to shopping districts?

In Calgary, the main reason no one takes transit is because of the homeless and how they have free reign (outside of the east/west ends of the free fare zone where they are taken out by transit police). They simply walk on and do as they please. Harassing riders, smelling up the whole car, smoking crack/meth (yes, this actually happens), and disrupting transit by overdosing and causing the train/bus to stop so paramedics can arrive and resuscitate them. Have you made a video on this MAJOR issue? Cause I cant find it.

It’s good to reframe the topic in terms of economic efficiency- thanks Reese, something people on both sides of the debate could get behind. I can’t imagine public transit with its shared service would be very inefficient once all the costs and income streams, public and private, are figured in. But who knows. Complex but good topic. And, I suppose it’s good to have the choice to spend more for private transportation if you are able and it’s appropriate. For public transit, quality and frequent service seem like they would drive “profitability.” Thanks for Chicago footage at the end. ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️

What Model is better for transit and Intercity rail? Hub and Spoke or a web model system?

Absolutely agree with you.

1:20 can we talk about this one passenger who just goes up the wrong escalator?

It's public transport because it's for the public. It doesn't need to make money it's for the better good of the people and the overall economy. If a person from a rural area come to the city to work in a consultancy firm daily via train, the lost revenue can easily be made out by the value he adds in the economy.

the metro here in São Paulo has been financially self-sufficient since it began operation 50 years ago (except for construction and expansion, of course), with a fare of less than 1 usd, because it wasn't supposed to profit, but to pay for itself with the lowest fare possible... until the state government started to privatize the newest lines that were just finishing construction, beginning with the line 4-yellow. now the state owned metro has to pay compensation to the private lines for every passenger that transfers to the private lines because, unlike the state metro, the private lines are expected to profit, and that profit is guaranteed at the privatization contract. that means that if the fare is r$4.40, the state metro pays the private lines r$6.80 for every passenger that transfers from state to private line, and if even that doesn't guarantee the private line to hit the targeted profit of the month due to less than expected ridership or whatever, the state metro has to give them money until that target is fulfilled. in that way, a state metro that was self-sufficient for over 50 years is now in financial chaos because it has been operating at a massive loss for over 10 years. and worst, it began with only one line, than a few years later another line was passed to the private sector (curiously the same company of the first line), and in a few years another one will go when it finishes construction. not to mention that these companies get the newest lines, so the ones with the least maintenence to do, so the cheapest to operate, and use this as a platform to make propaganda for more privatization, saying they are the best lines, when they're just the newest. now the state has started doing the same thing with the regional rail state company, and last year the first two lines were sent to the private sector (again, curiously the same company as the other ones)... but now, since the railways from the regional rail are literally centuries old, these lines have been thrown into absolute chaos, because the private company who said they were the best with the brand new metro lines have no idea how to operate an old infrastructure, and is not willing to spend money at maintenence because it wants profit. result: derailments every other week, extremely low speed operations, low frequency, doors opening at the wrong side of the train, etc. and the worst: the state government is defending the regional rail private chaos and has already set in motion the privatization of the remaining lines. and that raises the question: how will the state guarantee the private lines profit as the contract demands when there's no more state lines to take the loss? two options: they will risk mass protests and riots by doubling the fares price, or the state will literally send money to a private company so they have their profit assured, the ultimate public subsidy of the private sector. all of that when we had a perfectly funcioning self-sufficient low fare system and an improving to metro-level regional rail.

Trains in the 19th centruy profited immensely. You know, back when it was profitable.

the whole argument about buses being cheaper than cars strikes me as odd. One bus doesn't take you where you want to go, so you need a whole network of buses, so if everyone needs to take 3 different buses on their way to work, and who pays for all the empty buses? I think an argument can be made, but I don't think you made it convincingly at all. There is also the matter of time. For me to get to work on transit, is about two hours... by car, it is 20 minutes. When you get out of a North American City core, that's what the systems are like. How much are people willing to spend to get three hours a day of their life back? yeah... it's not that obvious. I get the idea, I agree with the principle, but it has to pass the sniff test too. These arguments for transit only really work in the city core, where traffic on highways is bad enough and there is sufficient transit. If you get into suburbia, any transit trip is going to be an hour longer each way, and it just isn't reasonable. robo taxis could change that, if they ever show up, but for now, in suburbia, I have a lot more hope for biking than transit. At least it cuts out all the waiting. We need better cycling infrastructure, to encourage people to use that.

I agree in general on this video, but we should also acknowledge the importance of capitalising on massive amounts of land that public transportation often requires such as stations, and to develop the land into area where people want and need to go to. Not only does improve the general area but it also induces more demand for public transport, as train and metro stations becomes a local hub. So as long as the assets are owned by the public, "profit" doesn't really exist on the balance sheet and any revenue generated by land should be put back into improving the facilities and infrastructure maintenance. We should advocate for better looking, cleaner and accessible stations with more commercial development for shops, gyms, health services etc etc

Transit SHOULD be making money to re-invest in long term planning goals. Transit IS NOT just about moving people (operations) - It's inextricably linked to land use planning. If done correctly, land value capture can solve pressing issues in cities by having the transit agency use those additional profits to secure housing next to transit, shift mentalities on how people move about cities (active transport), and take the politics out of transit planning (i.e. if you have your own funding/profits, you don't need to keep relying on tax dollars which need council approval on how to spend them).

1:53 not to even mention the toronto subway... uh the London underground and newyork are both older... still nice video

One aspect to add is how a good public transport system can make money not directly from revenue, but from the indirect economic growth associated with quicker journey times leading to a more efficient economy. Yes, this is said to be true with roads and faster roads equalling more exchanging of goods. But the indirect economic growth along with the direct growth from ticket revenue, advertisements and commercial premises (mixed-use) is easily capable of generating higher returns for the economy as a whole. Possibly even indirectly paying the costs of running the public transport.

JR East Tokyo: "Yes, next"

All great points!

“This higway you propose is not profitable”

In my opinion, Transit systems should break even. But so should the car system. I think mobility should be priced, at least at the level it causes costs (direct and externalized cost). Considering how inefficient cars are, especially in urban areas, this would be a homerun. And we will all be surprised how insanely subsidized all forms of transport are. But the planet will thank us. In rural areas, mobility might require some subsidies, if the people living there are also generating some positive external effects. But this should definitely not be the case in sprawling suburbia. In the end, I think your proposal is not the optimal way. However, it's the pragmatic proposal, and therefore probably the best available.

Perfect Vid

In New york. I can take train to city would take me 2 hours and cost 30 dollars. Plus 5.5 dollars on local train. If I drive costs me 10 dollar on gas. Profitable is reason I don't take train.

The mistake being made here about the profitability of transit is where we consider profit to come from. I would consider transit profitable if the city can operate within budget year after year while maintaining the infrastructure. Taxes are where governments get profit... So transit allowing for more economic prosperity while costing less than roads to maintain is profitable. Then we can get into the weeds a bit and talk about the japanese high speed rail system... If the government buys the land around an ambitious transit plan, and then builds the transit and sells the land at increased value (given the land is now more valuable being adjacent to a strong transit system) Then that could also be construed as profit.

No ridership doesn't need to make money but the TTC and Go should be proactive in finding ways to make money. Why don't Go Stations have gas station run by the transit agency?

Not having profitable chargeable infra (unlike roads which arent chargeable for many) means the infra wud find it hard to expand and quality of services wud be shitty. Refer: Indian railway pre and post nationalisation.

I'm would love to see more (and better) public transit in north America. But I think that most governments don't want to own public transit organizations. To get nongovernment companies to provide public transit, it needs to be profitable for them, one way or another. Unfortunately, there is still an isolationist mindset in North America, meaning that most people will prefer to avoid contact with strangers outside of a controlled environment. Additionally, personal vehicles provide much more perceived flexibility than public transit. Road infrastructure doesn't require an operator to work, whereas other types of infrastructure normally require a professional to operate a vehicle on it. Also, the higher the capacity of a transit vehicle the less flexible it is and the more space is generally required for each station. It is much harder for a rail system to respond to changes in demand than it is for a bus system, and train stations take up more space than bus stop shelters. I also disagree with the idea that there is no difference in ride comfort for passengers bases on their financial ability. There can certainly be competing options for passengers traveling between two points, be it between rail and bus, or more than one bus operator, or some other alternative such as a taxi that operates like a public bus (yes it is a thing in other countries).

That is why i like Germany. They will invest 60 billion euros till 2030 in new trains, stations and railroad...and their rail network is already good enough(but there is always space for improvement)

Great video. You put my thougths into words! Public transportation was often running on a commercial basis around the world until everyone was supposed to have a car and the road network was hugely expanding. Then a lot of the rail- and tram networks became unprofitable and closed down and the remaining public transport had to be subsidised. When our road network can bear it's own costs we might have a chance to at least make enough money to cover the costs of public transports. That requires miles-charges for heavy road transports. The non-profit policy should also include inter city- and long distance services, not only local and regional transit which is the case in most countries. Otherwise we cannot expect long distance journeys by cars to be replaced by train rides. I think Switzerland is the best example of a country that implements these ideas.